Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   This could be it, folks: Sequestergate. Leaked email shows that Obama has been deliberately trying to make the sequester a bad thing   (foxnews.com) divider line 469
    More: Scary, President Obama, Sequestergate, White House, Kristi Noem, Gene Sperling, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, austerities  
•       •       •

3445 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2013 at 9:51 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



469 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-06 09:07:01 AM  
Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it
 
2013-03-06 09:09:14 AM  
so basically it goes like this:

GOP: 'we love spending cuts.  spending cuts are GREAT!  [arranges sequester].  oh yeah, this is gonna be AWESOME!'
Obama: 'um...this isn't necessary. we can find other ways to cut spending and minimize the impact on the poor and middle class.'
GOP: 'SPENDING CUTS NAOW!'
Obama: 'but...
GOP: CUTS NAOW!'
Obama: fine.  its your budget, you live with it.
GOP: 'hey, wait!  people are mad at us!  OBAMA!  THIS IS YOUR FAULT!  GOTDAMN YOUUUUUUUUUU!'
 
2013-03-06 09:13:13 AM  
So I'm supposed to be outraged that this email stated the obvious?
 
2013-03-06 09:14:42 AM  
Funny, it was Fox and Boehner leading the cry of doom a week ago.
 
2013-03-06 09:17:16 AM  
The sequester is a bad thing, subby.  That was the whole point.  It was supposed to be such an obviously bad idea that would hurt everyone that it would force Congress to work together to find a better alternative.  Unfortunately, the Tea Party found out that it was a bad idea that Obama didn't want so they figured "go for it!"  They did this because they are stupid.
 
2013-03-06 09:19:36 AM  
The talking points are always a little confusing, but lately they're just flat contradictory. The sequester is and isn't bad, but the government is hoarding bullets to shoot patriots who riot because of the sequester, but the GOP wanted to cut spending the whole time, but it's Obama's fault. There, did I cover all the salient points?
 
2013-03-06 09:23:20 AM  

FloydA: The sequester is a bad thing, subby.  That was the whole point.  It was supposed to be such an obviously bad idea that would hurt everyone that it would force Congress to work together to find a better alternative.  Unfortunately, the Tea Party found out that it was a bad idea that Obama didn't want so they figured "go for it!"  They did this because they are stupid.


When you run on cutting taxes and you've cut all the taxes, the only thing left is to watch the world burn

/or compromise
//but that's blasphemy
 
2013-03-06 09:25:54 AM  
I feel like we're spending about 99.9% of the time arguing about why there is a sequester and who is responsible and .1% of the time trying to do something about it.
 
2013-03-06 09:26:10 AM  
The letter in question:

From: Brown, Charles S - APHIS Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:20 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: FW: Aquaculture loss - sequestration

All,

During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region). The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS. The response back was, "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that "APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs." So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000 aquaculture reduction. I will use the information you have already provided. If I need additional information, I will let you know.

Charlie
Charles S. Brown


I just wonder who "management" is.  And if someone on the management team is named "Lucy."
 
2013-03-06 09:28:39 AM  

JerseyTim: I feel like we're spending about 99.9% of the time arguing about why there is a sequester and who is responsible and .1% of the time trying to do something about it.


Which we wouldn't have to if Boehner hadn't decided to rewrite history and the media let him.
 
2013-03-06 09:28:52 AM  

somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it


Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.
 
2013-03-06 09:29:41 AM  
It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?
 
2013-03-06 09:30:09 AM  

St_Francis_P: The talking points are always a little confusing, but lately they're just flat contradictory. The sequester is and isn't bad, but the government is hoarding bullets to shoot patriots who riot because of the sequester, but the GOP wanted to cut spending the whole time, but it's Obama's fault. There, did I cover all the salient points?


It was Obama's idea.  It was designed to punish, not cut.  It has military spending cuts in it (not just cuts to future increases) and yet the Democrats aren't happy with that either.

Now, I think we've got it.
 
2013-03-06 09:30:38 AM  
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-06 09:31:32 AM  

I_C_Weener: Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.


you also, in theory, get paid a lot better than those of us in government

/we're just a bit more secure in our jobs
 
2013-03-06 09:31:42 AM  

I_C_Weener: St_Francis_P: The talking points are always a little confusing, but lately they're just flat contradictory. The sequester is and isn't bad, but the government is hoarding bullets to shoot patriots who riot because of the sequester, but the GOP wanted to cut spending the whole time, but it's Obama's fault. There, did I cover all the salient points?

It was Obama's idea.  It was designed to punish, not cut.  It has military spending cuts in it (not just cuts to future increases) and yet the Democrats aren't happy with that either.

Now, I think we've got it.


Oh, and Republicans already gave in on Tax Increases, now it is time for the Democrats to give in on spending cuts.
 
2013-03-06 09:33:54 AM  

JerseyTim: I feel like we're spending about 99.9% of the time arguing about why there is a sequester and who is responsible and .1% of the time trying to do something about it.


Limbaugh (and others) have spent a LOT of time trying to blame Obama for the sequester.  a good bit of the right wing media engine is trying to blame Obama for something.  I'm not sure exactly for what, but SOMETHING.  at this point i'm not even sure what the GOP thinks Obama has done wrong.
 
2013-03-06 09:35:07 AM  

I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.


Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.
 
2013-03-06 09:35:52 AM  

Weaver95: at this point i'm not even sure what the GOP thinks Obama has done wrong.


I'm pretty sure it has something to do with him being n***ardly with public monies.
 
2013-03-06 09:36:39 AM  

BillCo: Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?


HA! Take a look at who's in charge of passing a budget and tell me what happened to leadership. Boehner is up there with Newt in terms of the worst Speakers we've ever had.

The cuts are real, the effects are real and you're an idiot for not understanding how less pay affects how things are bought.

/that apartment I was gearing up to move into this summer looks to be on hold now
 
2013-03-06 09:36:39 AM  

GAT_00: I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.


Nope.  But I'm not too sympathetic to people biatching about hitting the recession 4 years after the rest of us did.
 
2013-03-06 09:39:33 AM  

I_C_Weener: GAT_00: I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.

Nope.  But I'm not too sympathetic to people biatching about hitting the recession 4 years after the rest of us did.


Woohoo, other people who never did anything wrong to me got hurt!  Time for a happy dance!
 
2013-03-06 09:39:50 AM  

BunkoSquad: Weaver95: at this point i'm not even sure what the GOP thinks Obama has done wrong.

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with him being n***ardly with public monies.


Limbaugh said something yesterday that I couldn't wrap my head around.  he accused Obama of 'not cooperating' with the GOP.  this is after he's spent what? the past 4 years SCREAMING at the GOP not to make deals with Obama on anything or he'd come after 'em.  So how is Obama supposed to cooperate with the GOP when the entire GOP has been told NOT to cooperate with Obama under any circumstances...?

And Limbaugh isn't alone in this.  to a greater or lesser extent that's been a common theme among the GOP media machines for the past couple weeks.  don't deal with Obama but make sure to blame him for not being cooperative or bipartisan.
 
2013-03-06 09:41:11 AM  

BillCo: Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?


the President can't force the GOP in congress to stop acting like idiots.  this is what you guys wanted and well...you won.  step up and claim your reward.
 
2013-03-06 09:42:32 AM  

I_C_Weener: now it is time for the Democrats to give in on spending cuts.


It's like the $2.8T in spending cuts signed already into law don't even exist.
 
2013-03-06 09:43:03 AM  

Weaver95: And Limbaugh isn't alone in this. to a greater or lesser extent that's been a common theme among the GOP media machines for the past couple weeks. don't deal with Obama but make sure to blame him for not being cooperative or bipartisan.


It's what you have to do, I guess, when you literally have no ideas of your own.
 
2013-03-06 09:43:28 AM  

BillCo: Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?


I thought Obama was leading us to ruin?

Last week, he was leading us straight to hell,  this week, he isn't leading enough.
 
2013-03-06 09:44:48 AM  

vernonFL: BillCo: Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?

I thought Obama was leading us to ruin?

Last week, he was leading us straight to hell,  this week, he isn't leading enough.


to be fair, he suffers from Quantum Republicanism, where all is as it seems while nothing at all at the same time
 
2013-03-06 09:47:06 AM  
What's funny is that by the time they find something that actually IS scandalous, the whole nation will collectively yawn because we're all bored with hearing how everything is a scandal.
 
2013-03-06 09:47:21 AM  

BunkoSquad: Weaver95: And Limbaugh isn't alone in this. to a greater or lesser extent that's been a common theme among the GOP media machines for the past couple weeks. don't deal with Obama but make sure to blame him for not being cooperative or bipartisan.

It's what you have to do, I guess, when you literally have no ideas of your own.


yeah, but voters (especially the younger ones) are starting to get smart with information processing.  we can SEE the lies.  once they get posted online somewhere you can't go back and erase it and pretend you weren't trolling the country.  For all their problems the Democrats seemed to have grasped the implications of the internet and what it means for their media relations efforts - don't get caught being a hypocritical bastard is a good rule in life to have and so far the Dems seemed to have learned it very well.  the GOP tho?  f*ck man...they just don't care.  they practically ooze hypocrisy and contempt then expect nobody to notice?!  I can't tell if they're insane or merely hyper-arrogant....
 
2013-03-06 09:49:30 AM  

unlikely: What's funny is that by the time they find something that actually IS scandalous, the whole nation will collectively yawn because we're all bored with hearing how everything is a scandal.


See: al-Awlaki.
 
2013-03-06 09:49:41 AM  

Weaver95: yeah, but voters (especially the younger ones) are starting to get smart with information processing. we can SEE the lies. once they get posted online somewhere you can't go back and erase it and pretend you weren't trolling the country. For all their problems the Democrats seemed to have grasped the implications of the internet and what it means for their media relations efforts - don't get caught being a hypocritical bastard is a good rule in life to have and so far the Dems seemed to have learned it very well. the GOP tho? f*ck man...they just don't care. they practically ooze hypocrisy and contempt then expect nobody to notice?! I can't tell if they're insane or merely hyper-arrogant...


so what you're saying is that the GOP is gonna have a tough time picking up young people if they don't change their message/grab some chloroform?

sweet
 
2013-03-06 09:52:30 AM  
now it is time for the Democrats to give in on spending cuts.

is this a farking joke holy shiattttttt
 
2013-03-06 09:53:05 AM  

St_Francis_P: The talking points are always a little confusing, but lately they're just flat contradictory. The sequester is and isn't bad, but the government is hoarding bullets to shoot patriots who riot because of the sequester, but the GOP wanted to cut spending the whole time, but it's Obama's fault. There, did I cover all the salient points?


I dont see Jesus or gays mentioned.  Rewrite it and I'll re-grade your paper by Friday.
 
2013-03-06 09:53:06 AM  
This is Obama's New Coke.
 
2013-03-06 09:54:04 AM  

FloydA: The sequester is a bad thing, subby.  That was the whole point.  It was supposed to be such an obviously bad idea that would hurt everyone that it would force Congress to work together to find a better alternative.  Unfortunately, the Tea Party found out that it was a bad idea that Obama didn't want so they figured "go for it!"  They did this because they are stupid.

potato

FTFY
 
2013-03-06 09:55:42 AM  
Heckuva job, Browny.
 
2013-03-06 09:56:57 AM  

SilentStrider: So I'm supposed to be outraged that this email stated the obvious?


This reminds me of when Obama saying the a consequnce of the budget impasse in 2011 would mean that the military wouldn't be paid got translated into "Obama hates the military and wants to eliminate their pay" when it got around to the chain emails and Facebook posts.
 
2013-03-06 09:57:00 AM  

BillCo: It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?


YELLOWCAKE!
 
2013-03-06 09:57:13 AM  

Weaver95: so basically it goes like this:

GOP: 'we love spending cuts.  spending cuts are GREAT!  [arranges sequester].  oh yeah, this is gonna be AWESOME!'
Obama: 'um...this isn't necessary. we can find other ways to cut spending and minimize the impact on the poor and middle class.'
GOP: 'SPENDING CUTS NAOW!'
Obama: 'but...
GOP: CUTS NAOW!'
Obama: fine.  its your budget, you live with it.
GOP: 'hey, wait!  people are mad at us!  OBAMA!  THIS IS YOUR FAULT!  GOTDAMN YOUUUUUUUUUU!'


You forgot one: "White House comes up with the Sequester:"

Protip: Don't propose a solution that is exactly what the GOP wants, and exactly what you don't want.
 
2013-03-06 09:57:19 AM  
This is nothing more than the DOA throwing a tantrum in an attempt to try and get funding back. Just like the doom and gloom every other department is pitching for the same reason.
 
2013-03-06 09:57:44 AM  

BillCo: It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?


Are public tours of the White House a vital function of the Federal Government? That seems like a pretty smart cut to me.
 
2013-03-06 09:57:53 AM  

BillCo: It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?


You forgot to say wake up sheeple!
 
2013-03-06 09:58:18 AM  
Wait...Obama's been playing politics over the impact of the cuts? And Fock Snooze is biatching about this?

*head asplode*

/Pot, kettle...
 
2013-03-06 09:58:24 AM  

BillCo: It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.


True, but we don't want the proof of how harmful the spending cuts are to be a mushroom cloud.
 
2013-03-06 09:59:09 AM  

BillCo: It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people. Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?


Congress wrote the law. Congress passed the law.

Congress could have repealed the law last week by passing a one sentence bill,
 
2013-03-06 10:00:28 AM  
Shut the fark up, Fox, nobody cares.
 
2013-03-06 10:01:32 AM  
I like how both parties agreed to the sequester because it was so awful neither would allow it to happen, but now the president is playing politics because he still says its awful.
 
2013-03-06 10:01:43 AM  

jaytkay: BillCo: It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people. Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?

Congress wrote the law. Congress passed the law.

Congress could have repealed the law last week by passing a one sentence bill,


And it's Obama's fault for NOT forcing Congress to behave themselves.  Because REASONS!  so many REASONS!  this is obviously all the fault of Obama's jedi mind tricks.
 
2013-03-06 10:02:18 AM  

I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.


We also make more for doing the same jobs. But you already knew that, because if you didn't you'd be taking that sweet free government ride, right? Because it's so awesome?
 
2013-03-06 10:02:25 AM  
I've been wondering where the GOP was going to take this since they been repeating the line that even though the cuts won't be even the slightest bit bad its still all of Obama's doing.

And now we know that when the cuts start to take effect the right wing talking point will be that Obama made the cuts bad. Essentially " but he cut the wrong things!".

Just watch.
 
2013-03-06 10:02:38 AM  

I_C_Weener: I_C_Weener: St_Francis_P: The talking points are always a little confusing, but lately they're just flat contradictory. The sequester is and isn't bad, but the government is hoarding bullets to shoot patriots who riot because of the sequester, but the GOP wanted to cut spending the whole time, but it's Obama's fault. There, did I cover all the salient points?

It was Obama's idea.  It was designed to punish, not cut.  It has military spending cuts in it (not just cuts to future increases) and yet the Democrats aren't happy with that either.

Now, I think we've got it.

Oh, and Republicans already gave in on Tax Increases, now it is time for the Democrats to give in on spending cuts.


You are everything that is wrong with this website.
 
2013-03-06 10:03:25 AM  
By the way, Subby, the approved scandal reporting convention we're using these days is to replace the suffix -gate with -ghazi.
 
2013-03-06 10:04:04 AM  
The President has the power to choose where to make these cuts. He wants to punish the American people as much as possible so he can blame others. WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make -s equester-painful-promised/
 
2013-03-06 10:04:06 AM  
Worst president ever in the history of this country!!  Never thought Carter could be topped but congratulations!
 
2013-03-06 10:04:15 AM  
So Obama is also  an Agriculture Department field officer?
Damn, that guy can multitask!

That being said, the email says that congress was already told what the cuts would be and not to contradict that. To extrapolate anything more is just typical republican Benghaziism.
 
2013-03-06 10:04:32 AM  

Smackledorfer: You are everything that is wrong with this website.


Why do you want to shut down a fark moderator's opinions, just because they are at odds with objective observable reality?
 
2013-03-06 10:05:29 AM  

Yakk: This is Obama's New Coke.


This is Obama's Jar Jar Binks
 
2013-03-06 10:05:36 AM  

I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.


But lazy government employees with outrageous perks paid for by people in the private sector are more important because FARK YOU.
 
2013-03-06 10:05:53 AM  

s2s2s2: Protip: Don't propose a solution that is exactly what the GOP wants, and exactly what you don't want.


Difficulty: Enough of the GOP are anti-sequester that there could probably be a good compromise struck with House Dems if Boehner wasn't committed to being a dick over it. He wants the "win", and the sequester - if it's dealt with at all before the furloughs start - will probably be handled after the CR is hammered out.

// another question: when will the GOP learn that being dogmatically anti-spending means when furloughs or shutdowns happen over spending, people will blame you, PR or no PR
 
2013-03-06 10:06:39 AM  
Obama will never be elected again.
 
2013-03-06 10:06:47 AM  
Cut the conservatives some slack and let them hem and haw about how Obama is making the sequester sound worse than it is. This is their baby, and their gloating will make it sweeter when it starts shiatting all over them in a few months.
 
2013-03-06 10:08:22 AM  

log_jammin: I've been wondering where the GOP was going to take this since they been repeating the line that even though the cuts won't be even the slightest bit bad its still all of Obama's doing.

And now we know that when the cuts start to take effect the right wing talking point will be that Obama made the cuts bad. Essentially " but he cut the wrong things!".

Just watch.


Republicans don't even have the balls to cut the programs they hate. They biatch all day about entitlements but lie when running for office about how they are really looking out for granny.

They talk about cutting loopholes but won't tell you which.

I hate this planet sometimes. So much stupid.
 
2013-03-06 10:08:23 AM  

SVenus: Obama will never be elected again.


Even now, he's preparing to declare martial law, and himself president for life. Prove me wrong - you can't!

Deal with it, libbo.
 
2013-03-06 10:08:35 AM  

tony41454: WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.


clane: Worst president ever in the history of this country!!  Never thought Carter could be topped but congratulations!


Awkward, two shills repeating the same thing in the same thread.
 
2013-03-06 10:08:47 AM  
Repubs break vase.
Obama doesn't sweep the mess under a rug
Repubs: "Obama is making it worse!  On purpose!"
 
2013-03-06 10:08:50 AM  
I see the Hyperbole Battalion of the Outrage Brigade has arrived...

Tally-ho, Dipshiats.
 
2013-03-06 10:10:34 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: But lazy government employees with outrageous perks paid for by people in the private sector are more important because FARK YOU.


what outrageous perks that private sector doesn't get?
 
2013-03-06 10:10:56 AM  

GAT_00: JerseyTim: I feel like we're spending about 99.9% of the time arguing about why there is a sequester and who is responsible and .1% of the time trying to do something about it.

Which we wouldn't have to if Boehner hadn't decided to rewrite history and the media let him.


His point hardly needed proving.
 
2013-03-06 10:11:37 AM  
How dare they conspire together to stay on message.

How dare they!

Obama is the worst dictator since Stalin!!
 
2013-03-06 10:12:07 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: BillCo: It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?

Are public tours of the White House a vital function of the Federal Government? That seems like a pretty smart cut to me.


Tours are done by volunteers...AND COST NOTHING
 
2013-03-06 10:12:12 AM  
No shiat they are playing politics over it, that's what politicians do.
 
2013-03-06 10:14:00 AM  
Obama is the worst 'worst president' in history.
 
2013-03-06 10:14:22 AM  

Headso: No shiat they are playing politics over it, that's what politicians do.


ya know, the other possibility here is that Obama simply decided to get the hell outta the way and let the GOP fall flat on their faces yet again.  if I were the GOP that'd make me mad as hell.
 
2013-03-06 10:15:11 AM  
ruthmazo.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-06 10:15:21 AM  

somedude210: jehovahs witness protection: But lazy government employees with outrageous perks paid for by people in the private sector are more important because FARK YOU.

what outrageous perks that private sector doesn't get?


Lower pay, guaranteed* seniority (and pay increases), better benefits, it's harder to fire (some of) them (sometimes), guaranteed telework (thanks Obama)...

// the pay increases are still below-market until you hit long-term
 
2013-03-06 10:15:30 AM  
The brave patriot who leaked this email is clearly showing us 0bamao's nefarious plot. By painting the cutting of jobs, spending, funding & education as a bad thing this dastardly regime is shining a spotlight on the facts about the sequester. The American people don't deserve an administration that would enforce the legislation that the representatives of the people agreed to. What happened to my country? Pray for this once great nation. God bless.
www.tedhickman.com
 
2013-03-06 10:15:37 AM  

tony41454: The President has the power to choose where to make these cuts. He wants to punish the American people as much as possible so he can blame others. WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make -s equester-painful-promised/


Nope. Congress specified across-the-board cuts.

Here is the language from the law:
"Each non-exempt account within a category shall be reduced by a dollar amount calculated by multiplying the enacted level of sequestrable budgetary resources in that account at that time by the uniform percentage necessary to eliminate a breach within that category."

/ Protip: The Washington Times is not a credible source.
 
2013-03-06 10:15:40 AM  

Dr Dreidel: when will the GOP learn


The GOP doesn't like to participate in demonic shiat like "learning".
All they need to know is that they are incapable of misunderestimating the will of all mighty fa**ot-hating god!
 
2013-03-06 10:15:41 AM  

theknuckler_33: Obama is the worst 'worst president' in history.


how so?
 
2013-03-06 10:16:41 AM  

Smackledorfer: Republicans don't even have the balls to cut the programs they hate.


I think one of the reasons they decided to let the sequester pass is because they were able to get massive cuts across the board while retaining a political out ("It was Obama's idea!"). They must be well aware of how unpopular their policy is, so the sequester was the perfect opportunity to implement some fiscal austerity while avoiding the level of flack they would get if they just passed a bill with those kinds of cuts.
 
2013-03-06 10:16:54 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Shut the fark up, Fox, nobody cares.


Ah, let them whine. They and every other member of the GOP are still recovering from Nov 2012 when the electoral college told them: "Bite the Pillow, I'm going in Dry."
 
2013-03-06 10:16:56 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Philip Francis Queeg: BillCo: It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?

Are public tours of the White House a vital function of the Federal Government? That seems like a pretty smart cut to me.

Tours are done by volunteers...AND COST NOTHING


The reservation process, tickets and security are all provided wholly without cost? Amazing.
 
2013-03-06 10:17:21 AM  

tony41454: The President has the power to choose where to make these cuts. He wants to punish the American people as much as possible so he can blame others. WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make -s equester-painful-promised/




But Tony, according to you, "he's going to be Impeached because he's not a REAL president anyway, and just the House-Negro in chief"
 
2013-03-06 10:17:29 AM  
I wonder if there is a connection between sequester, and the all time DJI high.
 
2013-03-06 10:17:37 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Tours are done by volunteers...AND COST NOTHING


I see the AM radio false talking points are out.
 
2013-03-06 10:17:46 AM  
Outstanding

70 posts in and absolutely nobody has actually address the article.  Someone posted a copy of the email mentioned in the article, but then asked about "Lucy"  Many here will moan about people working together, then post crap about "the other side".  In the same post complaining about the other side only looking to place blame, the poster then tries to place blame.

Good job, keep at it
 
2013-03-06 10:17:50 AM  

make me some tea: How dare they conspire together to stay on message.

How dare they!

Obama is the worst dictator since Stalin!!


And the least effective pres empty suit ever. Remembrr how congressional failures and filibusters were really his fault because he couldn't use his position to make republicans sane?

I heard that on fark so farking much last year.

Ugh. I'm out.
 
2013-03-06 10:18:12 AM  

s2s2s2: I wonder if there is a connection between sequester, and the all time DJI high.


It's a bubble. Investors are clearly on drugs. I wouldn't buy any stock right now, it's all overpriced.
 
2013-03-06 10:18:39 AM  
Leaked email adds fuel to claims White House playing politics over impact of cuts

Because the Right wold NEVER play politics over ANYthing, they're far too mature, and they value country over Party.

Right??
 
2013-03-06 10:19:02 AM  
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling politics is going on in here!
 
2013-03-06 10:19:13 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Tours are done by volunteers...AND COST NOTHING


I'm sure you're incorrect, since I have frequently been informed that government is always super-expensive and worse at things than private businesses.

Therefore, a private business should just build their OWN whitehouse that they can provide tours of. PROBLEM SOLVED.
 
2013-03-06 10:19:31 AM  

Mikey1969: Leaked email adds fuel to claims White House playing politics over impact of cuts

Because the Right wold NEVER play politics over ANYthing, they're far too mature, and they value country over Party.

Right??


So this is perfectly fine, and everyone should keep doing this?
 
2013-03-06 10:19:41 AM  
Conservatives called for an elimination of the entire Department of Agriculture before as proposed by the Cato Institute.   http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/07/29/take-chains a w-budget-2

They should be happy with this cut as it's a step in the direction of their policy goals.
 
2013-03-06 10:20:10 AM  

Munchausen's Proxy: Outstanding

70 posts in and absolutely nobody has actually address the article.  Someone posted a copy of the email mentioned in the article, but then asked about "Lucy"  Many here will moan about people working together, then post crap about "the other side".  In the same post complaining about the other side only looking to place blame, the poster then tries to place blame.

Good job, keep at it


So why didn't you comment on the article?
 
2013-03-06 10:20:39 AM  

Weaver95: theknuckler_33: Obama is the worst 'worst president' in history.

how so?


By not being very bad?

Unless you take 'worst worst' as implying 'the best', then yea, that's not right... but he's pretty bad at being the worst president in history.
 
2013-03-06 10:21:01 AM  

Raharu: But Tony, according to you, "he's going to be Impeached because he's not a REAL president anyway, and just the House-Negro in chief"


Did he really say that?
 
2013-03-06 10:21:15 AM  

somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it


Get a real job in the private sector.
 
2013-03-06 10:21:41 AM  
A quick check shows only the right wing sites are making much of the "leaked email" so far. It's hard to take their outrage seriously after years of steady anti-Obama mouth-foaming. But sequestration cuts like shutting down White House tours do seem silly and punitive. We'll no doubt be seeing a lot more of that.
 
2013-03-06 10:22:19 AM  

jaybeezey: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Get a real job in the private sector.


Cause fark the troops! Ameyerite?!?!
 
2013-03-06 10:22:21 AM  

Munchausen's Proxy: Outstanding

70 posts in and absolutely nobody has actually address the article.  Someone posted a copy of the email mentioned in the article, but then asked about "Lucy"  Many here will moan about people working together, then post crap about "the other side".  In the same post complaining about the other side only looking to place blame, the poster then tries to place blame.

Good job, keep at it


A. People did address it.
B. It was a bullshiat piece misreoresenting what was said in the email.
C. The important thing is you managed to make a meta-post that addressed the thread instead of the article to feel superior to those making posts about the thread instead of the article.

I wish I could barf through my monitor into your eyes and mouth.
 
2013-03-06 10:22:50 AM  

Weaver95: BillCo: Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?

the President can't force the GOP in congress to stop acting like idiots.  this is what you guys wanted and well...you won.  step up and claim your reward.


What the GOP wanted was to make Americans regret reelecting Obama, and that most certainly has not turned out the way they wanted - and I'm ok with that.
 
2013-03-06 10:23:10 AM  

Bloody William: Raharu: But Tony, according to you, "he's going to be Impeached because he's not a REAL president anyway, and just the House-Negro in chief"

Did he really say that?


I'm curious, as well. If he did he has no credibility on anything. If he didn't, you have no credibility.
 
2013-03-06 10:23:19 AM  

make me some tea: It's a bubble. Investors are clearly on drugs. I wouldn't buy any stock right now, it's all overpriced.


mmmmmmm: Bubble Tea
 
2013-03-06 10:23:27 AM  
So... uuuh... why is the text in two colors?
 
2013-03-06 10:24:54 AM  

Weaver95: so basically it goes like this:

GOP: 'we love spending cuts.  spending cuts are GREAT!  [arranges sequester].  oh yeah, this is gonna be AWESOME!'
Obama: 'um...this isn't necessary. we can find other ways to cut spending and minimize the impact on the poor and middle class.'
GOP: 'SPENDING CUTS NAOW!'
Obama: 'but...
GOP: CUTS NAOW!'
Obama: fine.  its your budget, you live with it.
GOP: 'hey, wait!  people are mad at us!  OBAMA!  THIS IS YOUR FAULT!  GOTDAMN YOUUUUUUUUUU!'


good analysis.
 
2013-03-06 10:25:14 AM  
So did anyone not see the President speaking last week and their assessments for all 50 states?  It's not exactly a secret that needs to be leaked that they were heavily pushing the possible negative effects of the sequester.
 
2013-03-06 10:25:51 AM  

somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it



I did. Three years ago. It's about time the fed caught up to the fact that most of america is broke and so are they.
 
2013-03-06 10:25:58 AM  

Munchausen's Proxy: Mikey1969: Leaked email adds fuel to claims White House playing politics over impact of cuts

Because the Right wold NEVER play politics over ANYthing, they're far too mature, and they value country over Party.

Right??

So this is perfectly fine, and everyone should keep doing this?


Yeah, that's what I said, 100%. It's not like I was pointing out the utter hypocrisy of these assholes, I was merely saying that it's all good. How very perceptive of you. Don't forget to grab a lollypop on your way out, you've earned it!
 
2013-03-06 10:27:09 AM  

jaybeezey: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Get a real job in the private sector.


The guys at the top of the food chain who watched their profits reach record levels are laughing at this line of thinking. Dance puppet, dance!
 
2013-03-06 10:27:21 AM  
People who think that the sequester won't be painful are ignorant.  You're cutting 85 billion from the economy.  Regardless of what those people who receive that money actually do - that's 85 billion less that people will be spending/investing.  That said, spending cuts are both necessary and a good thing, regardless of the pain.
 
2013-03-06 10:27:47 AM  
tony41454: WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

clane: Worst president ever in the history of this country!!  Never thought Carter could be topped but congratulations!


NateGrey:
Awkward, two shills repeating the same thing in the same thread.

clane:
If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...

Why all the dramatic cutbacks when Congress didn't even reduce the amount of money they received.  In fact they received MORE money!  you liberals are all freaking sheep!!  They lie to your face and you don't take 5 seconds to get the real facts.
 
2013-03-06 10:28:50 AM  
Leave it to Farthitler to cut programs that are essential to our national security and prestige throughout the world -- like White House tours, for example -- while continuing to lavish taxpayer dollars on pork barrel boondoggles like volcano monitoring.

Worst. President. Ever.
 
2013-03-06 10:29:24 AM  
"0" bama is "the" worst president in herstory
 
2013-03-06 10:29:43 AM  

MattStafford: People who think that the sequester won't be painful are ignorant.  You're cutting 85 billion from the economy.  Regardless of what those people who receive that money actually do - that's 85 billion less that people will be spending/investing.  That said, spending cuts are both necessary and a good thing, regardless of the pain.


Conservatives complain about the country turning into Greece, which is hilarious because austerity is exactly what would turn us into Greece.
 
2013-03-06 10:30:07 AM  

Weaver95: yeah, but voters (especially the younger ones) are starting to get smart with information processing.  we can SEE the lies.  once they get posted online somewhere you can't go back and erase it and pretend you weren't trolling the country.  For all their problems the Democrats seemed to have grasped the implications of the internet and what it means for their media relations efforts - don't get caught being a hypocritical bastard is a good rule in life to have and so far the Dems seemed to have learned it very well.  the GOP tho?  f*ck man...they just don't care.  they practically ooze hypocrisy and contempt then expect nobody to notice?!  I can't tell if they're insane or merely hyper-arrogant..


I live in South Carolina. It's working. I've had half a dozen different conversations in the past couple of days along the lines of:

"That Obama, look at him trying to blame the Republicans for the sequester. Who does he think he's fooling? Everyone knows it was his idea!"
"Don't you remember how this thing got started? The sequester wasn't supposed to happen, Congress was supposed to work together and fix it."
"Yeah yeah whatever, keep trying to shift the blame."
"Look, blame Republicans or Democrats, whatever, but it's in the hands of Congress, not the President, and has been since the supercommittee failed."
(change of subject)...

And then I'll hear them spouting the same shiat to someone else, later.

Mind you, these are government employees,  pissed off because they'll be losing approximately 20% of their anticipated paychecks, and they're blaming Obama because sequestration was all his idea in the first place.
 
2013-03-06 10:30:23 AM  

Jackson Herring: "0" bama is "the" worst president in herstory


Not only that, I but hear he's black!
 
2013-03-06 10:30:30 AM  

jaybeezey: Get a real job in the private sector.


explain to me how what I do isn't a real job just because it's a public sector job
 
2013-03-06 10:30:30 AM  

Bloody William: Raharu: But Tony, according to you, "he's going to be Impeached because he's not a REAL president anyway, and just the House-Negro in chief"

Did he really say that?


YES
 
2013-03-06 10:30:52 AM  

youmightberight: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it


I did. Three years ago. It's about time the fed caught up to the fact that most of america is broke and so are they.


Ya know, that might not be the best economic policy during a recession.  It's been covered in practically every thread, especially those with Matt Stafford, but effective recession-based economic policy involves the fed spending money, even if it has to borrow it, to stimulate growth.  Once the economy gets back on its feet as it's just starting to do now (see recovering housing market, DJI peak), spending should start to decrease while revenue increases due to more people paying more taxes.  Then government should repay debt.
 
2013-03-06 10:30:55 AM  

theknuckler_33: Obama is the worst 'worst president' in history.


I see what you did there.
 
2013-03-06 10:31:27 AM  

MattStafford: That said, spending cuts are both necessary and a good thing, regardless of the pain.


So I guess you're a big fan of the Hoover administration.
 
2013-03-06 10:31:42 AM  
I'm also getting a kick on how people think these cuts won't extend into the private sector. It isn't like the government doesn't utilize private goods or services and their employees utilize special government stores.
 
2013-03-06 10:32:10 AM  

keylock71: Jackson Herring: "0" bama is "the" worst president in herstory

Not only that, I but hear he's black!


And a usurper! I have no idea what that word means, but it HAS to be something bad!
 
2013-03-06 10:32:22 AM  

I_C_Weener: GAT_00: I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.

Nope.  But I'm not too sympathetic to people biatching about hitting the recession 4 years after the rest of us did.


This is what real class warfare looks like.  The rich have the private sector class hating the public sector class because THOSE GUYS ARE ROLLING IN DOUGH BROTHER!

/yawn
 
2013-03-06 10:32:27 AM  
www.bartcop.com
 
2013-03-06 10:33:19 AM  

steppenwolf: Conservatives complain about the country turning into Greece, which is hilarious because austerity is exactly what would turn us into Greece.


Continuing on our current path of borrowing and spending would be more akin to Greece than slowing our spending.  If your plan is to borrow and spend indefinitely, with no plans of how to pay it back or slow spending, eventually you will run headlong into reality and the Greek situation is simply forced upon you.
 
2013-03-06 10:33:36 AM  

somedude210: jaybeezey: Get a real job in the private sector.

explain to me how what I do isn't a real job just because it's a public sector job


These are the same people who think teachers and firefighters are overpaid moochers living high on the hog off the taxpayers.
 
2013-03-06 10:33:43 AM  

Raharu: Bloody William: Raharu: But Tony, according to you, "he's going to be Impeached because he's not a REAL president anyway, and just the House-Negro in chief"

Did he really say that?

YES


Thanks for the proof. It should be brought up every time he posts about anything.
 
2013-03-06 10:34:24 AM  

clane: Worst president ever in the history of this country!!  Never thought Carter could be topped but congratulations!


Bush left years ago. Let it go already.
 
2013-03-06 10:34:38 AM  

clane: tony41454: WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

clane: Worst president ever in the history of this country!!  Never thought Carter could be topped but congratulations!

NateGrey:
Awkward, two shills repeating the same thing in the same thread.

clane:
If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...

Why all the dramatic cutbacks when Congress didn't even reduce the amount of money they received.  In fact they received MORE money!  you liberals are all freaking sheep!!  They lie to your face and you don't take 5 seconds to get the real facts.




clane: we have been over this, clane: doesn't have to post the "clane:" part clane:
gets in clane:'s talking points memo. It just makes clane: look more like a copy pasta shill.

/clane:
//clane:clane:
 
2013-03-06 10:35:08 AM  

Tomahawk513: Ya know, that might not be the best economic policy during a recession. It's been covered in practically every thread, especially those with Matt Stafford, but effective recession-based economic policy involves the fed spending money, even if it has to borrow it, to stimulate growth. Once the economy gets back on its feet as it's just starting to do now (see recovering housing market, DJI peak), spending should start to decrease while revenue increases due to more people paying more taxes. Then government should repay debt.


That is only an effective policy if the money is spent to actually stimulate growth.  The problem that many people have is that they confuse consumption with growth.  Cutting everyone a check for a hundred bucks might stimulate consumption, but it doesn't stimulate growth.  Investing that money in infrastructure or education, on the other hand, might actually stimulate growth.
 
2013-03-06 10:35:43 AM  
he's already released his army of criminals to terrorize the countryside.

the man's on a roll.

he's rollin' and he's trollin'
ts4.mm.bing.net
 
2013-03-06 10:35:46 AM  

clane: tony41454: WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

clane: Worst president ever in the history of this country!!  Never thought Carter could be topped but congratulations!

NateGrey:
Awkward, two shills repeating the same thing in the same thread.

clane:
If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...

Why all the dramatic cutbacks when Congress didn't even reduce the amount of money they received.  In fact they received MORE money!  you liberals are all freaking sheep!!  They lie to your face and you don't take 5 seconds to get the real facts.


So I've been out of the loop lately, scrimshawing and getting my yacht ready for the America's Cup...

Is this guy a "thing" around here now?
 
2013-03-06 10:37:01 AM  

Smackledorfer: I_C_Weener: I_C_Weener: St_Francis_P: The talking points are always a little confusing, but lately they're just flat contradictory. The sequester is and isn't bad, but the government is hoarding bullets to shoot patriots who riot because of the sequester, but the GOP wanted to cut spending the whole time, but it's Obama's fault. There, did I cover all the salient points?

It was Obama's idea.  It was designed to punish, not cut.  It has military spending cuts in it (not just cuts to future increases) and yet the Democrats aren't happy with that either.

Now, I think we've got it.

Oh, and Republicans already gave in on Tax Increases, now it is time for the Democrats to give in on spending cuts.

You are everything that is wrong with this website.


Don't you love after spending months yelling "these aren't real cuts" he's modified it to "the real cuts that need to be repealed are to the programs I like, so let's preserve them and make real cuts to everything else"?
 
2013-03-06 10:38:23 AM  

MattStafford: steppenwolf: Conservatives complain about the country turning into Greece, which is hilarious because austerity is exactly what would turn us into Greece.

Continuing on our current path of borrowing and spending would be more akin to Greece than slowing our spending.  If your plan is to borrow and spend indefinitely, with no plans of how to pay it back or slow spending, eventually you will run headlong into reality and the Greek situation is simply forced upon you.


"If we keep spending we're going to be forced into austerity and our economy will fall apart, so let's implement austerity."

The cancer is the cure, huh?
 
2013-03-06 10:39:03 AM  

clane: If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...


how is this not a cut? We aren't spending nearly as much as we were, we've stopped putting money to certain things. Is that not a definition of a cut?

this idea was brought about by the supercommittee as a way to bring both sides together and keep them from farking this economy up. Obviously, one side didn't care.

So what lies are we being told?
 
2013-03-06 10:40:26 AM  
He just can't get to impeachment fast enough....can he.
 
2013-03-06 10:40:32 AM  

sigdiamond2000: clane: tony41454: WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

clane: Worst president ever in the history of this country!!  Never thought Carter could be topped but congratulations!

NateGrey:
Awkward, two shills repeating the same thing in the same thread.

clane:
If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...

Why all the dramatic cutbacks when Congress didn't even reduce the amount of money they received.  In fact they received MORE money!  you liberals are all freaking sheep!!  They lie to your face and you don't take 5 seconds to get the real facts.

So I've been out of the loop lately, scrimshawing and getting my yacht ready for the America's Cup...

Is this guy a "thing" around here now?




clane: is sorta new, clane: is kinda like a mix between tony For racism, and shotglasss For dementia.
 
2013-03-06 10:40:42 AM  

colon_pow: he's already released his army of criminals to terrorize the countryside.
the man's on a roll.
he's rollin' and he's trollin'
[ts4.mm.bing.net image 218x147]


How many did Rush say, 30,000 illegals right?
 
2013-03-06 10:41:05 AM  
Well, duh. It's not like the sequester stopped Obama from handing $250,000,000 to the Egyptians, who make billion$ from us every year in oil. Meanwhile, teachers have to be furloughed, despite their being state, not federal employees, and the fact that more money could be saved by furloughing Administrators.

It's never been anything more than a Democratic temper tantrum over cutting their spending power. Hell, Obama just parked five nuclear aircraft carriers right next to each other at Norfolk, VA, in direct violation of any common sense at all. Thought we learned our lesson about that at Battleship Row, nearly 60 years ago.
 
2013-03-06 10:43:19 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Well, duh. It's not like the sequester stopped Obama from handing $250,000,000 to the Egyptians, who make billion$ from us every year in oil.


Huh?
 
2013-03-06 10:45:10 AM  

steppenwolf: "If we keep spending we're going to be forced into austerity and our economy will fall apart, so let's implement austerity."

The cancer is the cure, huh?


Your options are to continue spending until you face a serious borrowing/spending constraint, and are forced to scale back suddenly with very little flexibility, or scale down spending now, and apply targeted cuts more flexibly.

And the fact that our government refused to reasonably target the cuts doesn't suddenly make the former option better.  An untargeted slow down in spending is still better than increased spending, when talking about the long term health of the economy.
 
2013-03-06 10:45:46 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Obama from handing $250,000,000 to the Egyptians


How can anyone take a Republican seriously:

U.S. foreign assistance to Egypt has averaged about $2 billion a year since 1979, when Egypt struck a peace treaty with Israel following the Camp David accords Link
 
2013-03-06 10:45:58 AM  

netcentric: He just can't get to impeachment fast enough....can he.


PWB is impeachable now?
 
2013-03-06 10:46:30 AM  
does it really matter? they disown it now, but if the country recovers then it will be all their idea again
 
2013-03-06 10:46:53 AM  

tony41454: The President has the power to choose where to make these cuts. He wants to punish the American people as much as possible so he can blame others. WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make -s equester-painful-promised/


No, the sequester is worded in such a way that the cuts must be done equitably across the board. They are legally unable to cut more from any program at the expense of another per the language of the bill itself. That's a big part of why it's a poison pill: it's designed to hurt based on the text of the law. Hell, McConnell said he was open to changing the law to give the executive more latitude in choosing cuts, but the House never took such legislation up for a vote. They can't claim the President already has a power they said they would need to pass legislation to grant him. You're saying the president is terrible for obeying the law.
 
2013-03-06 10:47:07 AM  

steppenwolf: MattStafford: steppenwolf: Conservatives complain about the country turning into Greece, which is hilarious because austerity is exactly what would turn us into Greece.

Continuing on our current path of borrowing and spending would be more akin to Greece than slowing our spending.  If your plan is to borrow and spend indefinitely, with no plans of how to pay it back or slow spending, eventually you will run headlong into reality and the Greek situation is simply forced upon you.

"If we keep spending we're going to be forced into austerity and our economy will fall apart, so let's implement austerity."

The cancer is the cure, huh?


I love his way of thinking.  "If nothing ever changes, bad things will happen."  That's like a weather forecaster saying, "Well, it's snowing today at a rate of 1" per hour.  By this time tomorrow we'll have 24".  By this time next week we'll have 168"."
 
2013-03-06 10:48:25 AM  

Raharu: Bloody William: Raharu: But Tony, according to you, "he's going to be Impeached because he's not a REAL president anyway, and just the House-Negro in chief"

Did he really say that?

YES


Wow.

I want to be offended by the racist connotations, but I'm honestly more offended by the historical ignorance and complete misuse of the phrase. I mean, it just doesn't work as an analogy on any level.
 
2013-03-06 10:48:59 AM  
I'm at the point where when I read right wing talking points, I feel like I'm reading an alien language. Have they really gone that far beyond the pale?
 
2013-03-06 10:49:56 AM  
So Obama has been deliberately trying to make the sequester what it was deliberately designed to be?
 
2013-03-06 10:50:27 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Obama just parked five nuclear aircraft carriers right next to each other at Norfolk, VA, in direct violation of any common sense at all.


I shouldnt keep reading, but Republican lies are so much fun:

Claim: Five first line U.S. aircraft carriers were recently all docked together in one place for the first time since World War II.

False
Link
Republicans love their FWD: FWD: FWD: Obama worse evar
 
2013-03-06 10:50:34 AM  

Grungehamster: tony41454: The President has the power to choose where to make these cuts. He wants to punish the American people as much as possible so he can blame others. WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make -s equester-painful-promised/

No, the sequester is worded in such a way that the cuts must be done equitably across the board. They are legally unable to cut more from any program at the expense of another per the language of the bill itself. That's a big part of why it's a poison pill: it's designed to hurt based on the text of the law. Hell, McConnell said he was open to changing the law to give the executive more latitude in choosing cuts, but the House never took such legislation up for a vote. They can't claim the President already has a power they said they would need to pass legislation to grant him. You're saying the president is terrible for obeying the law.


Why should the house take up the bill when it could not pass the senate?
 
2013-03-06 10:51:33 AM  

sigdiamond2000: So I've been out of the loop lately, scrimshawing and getting my yacht ready for the America's Cup...

Is this guy a "thing" around here now?


Yep. He's tedious, though. Cookie-cutter threadshiatter, no real responses, constantly relates everything to how liberals suck, doesn't even try to put up anything like an argument. Just dull.
 
2013-03-06 10:52:53 AM  

MattStafford: Your options are to continue spending until you face a serious borrowing/spending constraint, and are forced to scale back suddenly with very little flexibility, or scale down spending now, and apply targeted cuts more flexibly.

And the fact that our government refused to reasonably target the cuts doesn't suddenly make the former option better. An untargeted slow down in spending is still better than increased spending, when talking about the long term health of the economy.


How can you be concerned with inflexible, broad cuts in one paragraph and in the next consider it the best option in the next? This kind of logical inconsistency is disingenuous, at best.
 
2013-03-06 10:52:59 AM  
Why am I not shocked? I was telling my dad the other day that Obama would likely put the cuts in places that would let him do as much damage as possible. This, of course, is meant to be some arm-twisting on Congress, and especially the GOP, to get things done.The doom-and-gllom was overplayed, but it makes sense why Obama is doing this from a planning standpoint. The question is if the GOP will budge once the defense cuts start rolling.
 
2013-03-06 10:53:43 AM  

NateGrey: tony41454: WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

clane: Worst president ever in the history of this country!!  Never thought Carter could be topped but congratulations!

Awkward, two shills repeating the same thing in the same thread.


Two historically ignorant shills.

See, here's the thing with 'OF. ALL. TIME.' type statements: you actually have to compare them to past events for them to be valid. And even if every single thing the right says about Obama is true (it isn't) he  still would be better than:

William Henry Harrison: hard to be good in 30 days, especially when you spend most of them in bed dying of pneumonia
Herbert Hoover: totally unable to stop the Great Depression, despite an impressive financial background
Ulysses S. Grant: his administration was a hotbed of graft and corruption
Warren G. Harding: his administration was even more corrupt than Grant's, and he was probably complicit to boot
James Buchanan: utterly incapable of stopping the increasing factionalism that started the Civil War

And point in fact, W could be reasonably added to that list too - and probably will be in 50 years or so.

Against that context, Obama is a middle of the road President. He'll be remembered by history for being the first black President, and for having inherited the worst financial situation since FDR. He didn't fix it, but he didn't make it worse, either.

At a guess, historians of his Presidency will spend a lot more time talking about Congressional gridlock than about anything he did or didn't do. In that sense, he's about on a par with Grover Cleveland: not especially good, not especially bad, more a victim of his times than a determiner of them.
 
2013-03-06 10:54:11 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Well, duh. It's not like the sequester stopped Obama from handing $250,000,000 to the Egyptians, who make billion$ from us every year in oil. Meanwhile, teachers have to be furloughed, despite their being state, not federal employees, and the fact that more money could be saved by furloughing Administrators.

It's never been anything more than a Democratic temper tantrum over cutting their spending power. Hell, Obama just parked five nuclear aircraft carriers right next to each other at Norfolk, VA, in direct violation of any common sense at all. Thought we learned our lesson about that at Battleship Row, nearly 60 years ago.


But remember, taxing the rich more is bad and won't help our debt problems.
 
Bf+
2013-03-06 10:54:11 AM  

tony41454: The President has the power to choose where to make these cuts. He wants to punish the American people as much as possible so he can blame others. WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make -s equester-painful-promised/



Shut the fark up, Donnie.
 
2013-03-06 10:54:34 AM  
People should be outraged by this!! Why aren't they!?!!

Now that I think about it, they aren't getting outraged over any of the things they should be... not this, not the threats to Woodward, not even the administration's malfeasance and lies in Benghazi!! And that's outrageous!!!

People should be getting outraged over the scandals, but something is suppressing that outrage!!! That's scandalous suppression of scandals!!! It's not the dead, it's the coverup!!!!

It's... it's...

SCANDALGATE!!!!
 
2013-03-06 10:55:05 AM  

Raharu: Bloody William: Raharu: But Tony, according to you, "he's going to be Impeached because he's not a REAL president anyway, and just the House-Negro in chief"

Did he really say that?

YES


Sweet. I just upgraded his tag from "Freeptard" to "Racist Freeptard."

/... but I repeat myself.
 
2013-03-06 10:55:40 AM  

Weaver95: theknuckler_33: Obama is the worst 'worst president' in history.

how so?


Why would you respond to someone with 33 in their handle?

I expect better of you, Weavs.  Unless you're bored this morning, in which case, have fun!
 
2013-03-06 10:55:53 AM  

xanadian: The letter in question:

From: Brown, Charles S - APHIS Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:20 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: FW: Aquaculture loss - sequestration

All,

During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region). The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS. The response back was, "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that "APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs." So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000 aquaculture reduction. I will use the information you have already provided. If I need additional information, I will let you know.

Charlie
Charles S. Brown

I just wonder who "management" is.  And if someone on the management team is named "Lucy."


Here is how I interpret this letter.

Question:  How much free reign do I have to handle budget changes?
Answer:  The administration has already determined that you will cut 'x'.  Please cut that first and you have freedom to make additional cuts as needed.

I would say the letter is saying 'make the cuts we said we would make first'.

I don't see the conspiracy..
 
2013-03-06 10:56:05 AM  

BillCo: It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?


those are non essential/frivolous expenditures. if he left them intact and instead cut something else you'd biatch about that too.   perpetual whiny baby
 
2013-03-06 10:56:42 AM  

Zasteva: People should be outraged by this!! Why aren't they!?!!

Now that I think about it, they aren't getting outraged over any of the things they should be... not this, not the threats to Woodward, not even the administration's malfeasance and lies in Benghazi!! And that's outrageous!!!

People should be getting outraged over the scandals, but something is suppressing that outrage!!! That's scandalous suppression of scandals!!! It's not the dead, it's the coverup!!!!

It's... it's...

SCANDALGATE!!!!


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-06 10:57:23 AM  

rdalton: xanadian: The letter in question:

From: Brown, Charles S - APHIS Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:20 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: FW: Aquaculture loss - sequestration

All,

During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region). The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS. The response back was, "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that "APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs." So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000 aquaculture reduction. I will use the information you have already provided. If I need additional information, I will let you know.

Charlie
Charles S. Brown

I just wonder who "management" is.  And if someone on the management team is named "Lucy."

Here is how I interpret this letter.

Question:  How much free reign do I have to handle budget changes?
Answer:  The administration has already determined that you will cut 'x'.  Please cut that first and you have freedom to make additional cuts as needed.

I would say the letter is saying 'make the cuts we said we would make first'.

I don't see the conspiracy..


If it said any different the outrage would be "Obama lied to Congress about how cuts would be distributed!"
 
2013-03-06 10:57:33 AM  

Munchausen's Proxy: Outstanding

70 posts in and absolutely nobody has actually address the article.  Someone posted a copy of the email mentioned in the article, but then asked about "Lucy"  Many here will moan about people working together, then post crap about "the other side".  In the same post complaining about the other side only looking to place blame, the poster then tries to place blame.

Good job, keep at it


You mean someone actually reads the crap over at the FOX News site?

Isn't that expecting a bit much?
 
2013-03-06 10:58:09 AM  
Okay so does someone have an actual, factual breakdown of the sequester, what it is, what it does, and what the numbers mean? In the commotion I'm starting to lose sense of reality.
 
2013-03-06 10:58:55 AM  

steppenwolf: How can you be concerned with inflexible, broad cuts in one paragraph and in the next consider it the best option in the next? This kind of logical inconsistency is disingenuous, at best.


It's the difference between inflexibly cutting 1% of the budget, and inflexibly cutting 50% of the budget.
 
2013-03-06 11:02:20 AM  
clane: If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...


somedude210:
how is this not a cut? We aren't spending nearly as much as we were, we've stopped putting money to certain things. Is that not a definition of a cut?

this idea was brought about by the supercommittee as a way to bring both sides together and keep them from farking this economy up. Obviously, one side didn't care.

So what lies are we being told?


clane:
You're being lied to everyday
by the Democrats and the liberal press... It's not a cut; they simply reduced the amount of the INCREASE!

They still got an increase just not as much as originally wanted.  It's like you walk in the house tell your wife i got my raise today i was making $150 now i am making $160 but i thought i was going get $170 with the raise so now we can't feed the kids or stay in this house.

Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truthTHE TRUTH
 
2013-03-06 11:02:28 AM  

Smackledorfer: Munchausen's Proxy: Outstanding

70 posts in and absolutely nobody has actually address the article.  Someone posted a copy of the email mentioned in the article, but then asked about "Lucy"  Many here will moan about people working together, then post crap about "the other side".  In the same post complaining about the other side only looking to place blame, the poster then tries to place blame.

Good job, keep at it

A. People did address it.
B. It was a bullshiat piece misreoresenting what was said in the email.
C. The important thing is you managed to make a meta-post that addressed the thread instead of the article to feel superior to those making posts about the thread instead of the article.

I wish I could barf through my monitor into your eyes and mouth.


It's been a long time coming, but it's official:
img9.imageshack.us

You said something that made coffee come out my faceholes.
 
2013-03-06 11:02:57 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: rdalton: xanadian: The letter in question:

From: Brown, Charles S - APHIS Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:20 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: FW: Aquaculture loss - sequestration

All,

During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region). The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS. The response back was, "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that "APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs." So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000 aquaculture reduction. I will use the information you have already provided. If I need additional information, I will let you know.

Charlie
Charles S. Brown

I just wonder who "management" is.  And if someone on the management team is named "Lucy."

Here is how I interpret this letter.

Question:  How much free reign do I have to handle budget changes?
Answer:  The administration has already determined that you will cut 'x'.  Please cut that first and you have freedom to make additional cuts as needed.

I would say the letter is saying 'make the cuts we said we would make first'.

I don't see the conspiracy..

If it said any different the outrage would be "Obama lied to Congress about how cuts would be distributed!"


Well, if he came back and said "we don't really need to cut that because we can achieve the same savings by cutting this, which will not interrupt this vital program" it would seem a wise and prudent move to do what he's suggesting. But telling him he can't because they've already said they'd cut the more vital program is just asinine. And political.
 
2013-03-06 11:02:57 AM  

Saiga410: Grungehamster: tony41454: The President has the power to choose where to make these cuts. He wants to punish the American people as much as possible so he can blame others. WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/5/email-tells-feds-make -s equester-painful-promised/

No, the sequester is worded in such a way that the cuts must be done equitably across the board. They are legally unable to cut more from any program at the expense of another per the language of the bill itself. That's a big part of why it's a poison pill: it's designed to hurt based on the text of the law. Hell, McConnell said he was open to changing the law to give the executive more latitude in choosing cuts, but the House never took such legislation up for a vote. They can't claim the President already has a power they said they would need to pass legislation to grant him. You're saying the president is terrible for obeying the law.

Why should the house take up the bill when it could not pass the senate?


McConnell himself advocated such a policy, I would hope that would mean he wouldn't filibuster such a modification. If you mean "why didn't the Senate pass it first?" it's because the 113th House has yet to pass a single bill to correct the sequester that the Senate could modify to add the language to.
 
2013-03-06 11:05:01 AM  
Randomly bolding and capitalizing your sentences like a 90s comic book isn't going to make you any less tedious, <b>clane</b>.
 
2013-03-06 11:05:15 AM  

MattStafford: People who think that the sequester won't be painful are ignorant. You're cutting 85 billion from the economy.


How much is that in coconuts?
 
2013-03-06 11:05:38 AM  
Still used to the raw HTML editor. Gah.
 
2013-03-06 11:07:22 AM  

clane: clane: If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...

somedude210:
how is this not a cut? We aren't spending nearly as much as we were, we've stopped putting money to certain things. Is that not a definition of a cut?

this idea was brought about by the supercommittee as a way to bring both sides together and keep them from farking this economy up. Obviously, one side didn't care.

So what lies are we being told?

clane:
You're being lied to everyday by the Democrats and the liberal press... It's not a cut; they simply reduced the amount of the INCREASE!

They still got an increase just not as much as originally wanted.  It's like you walk in the house tell your wife i got my raise today i was making $150 now i am making $160 but i thought i was going get $170 with the raise so now we can't feed the kids or stay in this house.

Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth.  THE TRUTH


Clane: Wait until they dry to wrap their yappers around this one.
Cletus C.: You've blown your cover.
Clane: No, really.
 
2013-03-06 11:07:30 AM  

Cletus C.: Philip Francis Queeg: rdalton: xanadian: The letter in question:

From: Brown, Charles S - APHIS Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:20 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: FW: Aquaculture loss - sequestration

All,

During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region). The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS. The response back was, "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that "APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs." So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000 aquaculture reduction. I will use the information you have already provided. If I need additional information, I will let you know.

Charlie
Charles S. Brown

I just wonder who "management" is.  And if someone on the management team is named "Lucy."

Here is how I interpret this letter.

Question:  How much free reign do I have to handle budget changes?
Answer:  The administration has already determined that you will cut 'x'.  Please cut that first and you have freedom to make additional cuts as needed.

I would say the letter is saying 'make the cuts we said we would make first'.

I don't see the conspiracy..

If it said any different the outrage would be "Obama lied to Congress about how cuts would be distributed!"

Well, if he came back and said "we don't really need to cut that because we can achieve the same savings by cutting this, which will not interrupt this vital program" it would seem a wise and prudent move to do what he's suggesting. But telling him he can't because they've already said they'd cut the more vital ...


So you think that statements to Congress should be routinely ignored by federal bureaucrats.
 
2013-03-06 11:08:10 AM  

somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it


Except the sequester is nowhere near 20% of the federal budget. It's closer to 2%. And yes, if I were a hog buying $1000 hammers and $500 toilet seats, I could find a way to survive a 2% pay cut.

Obama is being a dick here, and I say that as a person who voted for him. This is a Republicanesque tactic: scorching the earth and shooting the hostage to make the other guy look bad.
 
2013-03-06 11:09:36 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: Philip Francis Queeg: rdalton: xanadian: The letter in question:

From: Brown, Charles S - APHIS Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:20 PM
To: [redacted]
Cc: [redacted]
Subject: FW: Aquaculture loss - sequestration

All,

During the Management team conference call this morning, I asked if there was any latitude in how the sequestration cuts related to aquaculture could be managed (e.g. spread across the Region). The question was elevated to APHIS BPAS. The response back was, "We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that "APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 States in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry, unless they provide funding to cover the costs." So, it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be."

I have been asked to provide a plan by Friday that will outline the implement of the $263,000 aquaculture reduction. I will use the information you have already provided. If I need additional information, I will let you know.

Charlie
Charles S. Brown

I just wonder who "management" is.  And if someone on the management team is named "Lucy."

Here is how I interpret this letter.

Question:  How much free reign do I have to handle budget changes?
Answer:  The administration has already determined that you will cut 'x'.  Please cut that first and you have freedom to make additional cuts as needed.

I would say the letter is saying 'make the cuts we said we would make first'.

I don't see the conspiracy..

If it said any different the outrage would be "Obama lied to Congress about how cuts would be distributed!"

Well, if he came back and said "we don't really need to cut that because we can achieve the same savings by cutting this, which will not interrupt this vital program" it would seem a wise and prudent move to do what he's suggesting. But telling him he can't because they've already said they'd cut the ...


Absolutely. Shoot Congress an email explaining they've found a better way. They'll understand.
 
2013-03-06 11:09:40 AM  
 
2013-03-06 11:10:13 AM  

Bloody William: Still used to the raw HTML editor. Gah.


Not sure if you saw already, there is an option in your profile to set raw HTML editor as default.
 
2013-03-06 11:10:30 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

But lazy government employees with outrageous perks paid for by people in the private sector are more important because FARK YOU.


FTFY, you tool
 
2013-03-06 11:10:31 AM  

HAMMERTOE: Well, duh. It's not like the sequester stopped Obama from handing $250,000,000 to the Egyptians, who make billion$ from us every year in oil. Meanwhile, teachers have to be furloughed, despite their being state, not federal employees, and the fact that more money could be saved by furloughing Administrators.

It's never been anything more than a Democratic temper tantrum over cutting their spending power. Hell, Obama just parked five nuclear aircraft carriers right next to each other at Norfolk, VA, in direct violation of any common sense at all. Thought we learned our lesson about that at Battleship Row, nearly 60 years ago.


The teachers that are in line to be furloughed are Federal employees. The teachers that are being referred to are teachers at schools on military bases, not the public school districts you are thinking of.
 
2013-03-06 11:10:32 AM  

clane: clane: If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...

somedude210:
how is this not a cut? We aren't spending nearly as much as we were, we've stopped putting money to certain things. Is that not a definition of a cut?

this idea was brought about by the supercommittee as a way to bring both sides together and keep them from farking this economy up. Obviously, one side didn't care.

So what lies are we being told?

clane:
You're being lied to everyday by the Democrats and the liberal press... It's not a cut; they simply reduced the amount of the INCREASE!

They still got an increase just not as much as originally wanted.  It's like you walk in the house tell your wife i got my raise today i was making $150 now i am making $160 but i thought i was going get $170 with the raise so now we can't feed the kids or stay in this house.

Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth.  THE TRUTH




Oh clane:, clane: clane: clane:. Whatever are we going to do with you.
 
2013-03-06 11:10:35 AM  

MattStafford: It's the difference between inflexibly cutting 1% of the budget, and inflexibly cutting 50% of the budget.


Just looking at a snap shot of cuts for 5 major budgets, an average of approximately 7.4% is being cut by the sequester. The second number does not deserve to be rebuffed, as it was pulled out of your ass.
 
2013-03-06 11:11:07 AM  

Tommy Moo: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Except the sequester is nowhere near 20% of the federal budget. It's closer to 2%. And yes, if I were a hog buying $1000 hammers and $500 toilet seats, I could find a way to survive a 2% pay cut.

Obama is being a dick here, and I say that as a person who voted for him. This is a Republicanesque tactic: scorching the earth and shooting the hostage to make the other guy look bad.


Yeah, how dare he write a bill by himself and force Congress to pass it at gunpoint. Oh right, that's now how legislation works at all.
 
2013-03-06 11:11:18 AM  

Bloody William: sigdiamond2000: So I've been out of the loop lately, scrimshawing and getting my yacht ready for the America's Cup...

Is this guy a "thing" around here now?

Yep. He's tedious, though. Cookie-cutter threadshiatter, no real responses, constantly relates everything to how liberals suck, doesn't even try to put up anything like an argument. Just dull.


A troll without panache is truly a horrible thing to behold.
 
2013-03-06 11:11:19 AM  

Cletus C.: Absolutely. Shoot Congress an email explaining they've found a better way. They'll understand.


Yeah, the Republican Congressional delegation has shown it self to be nothing if not reasonable and understanding.
 
2013-03-06 11:11:33 AM  

clane: You're being lied to everyday by the Democrats and the liberal press... It's not a cut; they simply reduced the amount of the INCREASE!

They still got an increase just not as much as originally wanted. It's like you walk in the house tell your wife i got my raise today i was making $150 now i am making $160 but i thought i was going get $170 with the raise so now we can't feed the kids or stay in this house.

Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth. THE TRUTH


Dear god, you're serious, aren't you?

I've heard this point by a few right wingers and yet I can't place the origins or logic of it.

as to Fox telling us the truth, how's that Benghazi thing working out for ya? Romney winning the election? How about how all us liberals are a bunch of money-grubbing assholes and only Reagan was a true conservative who never did anything like sell weapons to our enemies, give amnesty to illegals or destroy our mental health system so people like you can have access to the public
 
2013-03-06 11:13:20 AM  

steppenwolf: Just looking at a snap shot of cuts for 5 major budgets, an average of approximately 7.4% is being cut by the sequester. The second number does not deserve to be rebuffed, as it was pulled out of your ass.


Five major defense budgets you mean.  I'm sure the vast majority of us can agree that we spend far too much on defense.  We're going to have to cut a serious number of jobs in the MIC, it is just the way it is.  You can't fund an MIC via borrowing indefinitely, which is what people are trying to do.
 
2013-03-06 11:14:04 AM  

Cletus C.: Absolutely. Shoot Congress an email explaining they've found a better way. They'll understand.


i43.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-06 11:15:36 AM  
So, proof that Obama didn't want a sequester and the GOP did.

/MAXIMUM SPIN
 
2013-03-06 11:15:37 AM  

MattStafford: Five major defense budgets you mean.


No, that data included non-defense discretionary and mandatory budget.
 
2013-03-06 11:16:01 AM  

GAT_00: I_C_Weener: GAT_00: I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.

Nope.  But I'm not too sympathetic to people biatching about hitting the recession 4 years after the rest of us did.

Woohoo, other people who never did anything wrong to me got hurt!  Time for a happy dance!


If I'm suffering, it behooves me to make you suffer as well. It gives you an incentive to end my suffering, so I'll end yours.
 
2013-03-06 11:16:21 AM  

JerseyTim: I feel like we're spending about 99.9% of the time arguing about why there is a sequester and who is responsible and .1% of the time trying to do something about it.


Welcome to the fark politics tab.  This is where you're supposed to pick a team (as long it's the Democrats) and beat dead horses while turning a blind eye to what's actually happening.  If you hang in this tab long enough you will learn;

A:  D=Good
B:  R=Bad
C:  Everything is still Bush's fault
D:  You will be assimilated
E:  You will be ostracized if you don't conform to A, B & C not wishing to become D.
 
2013-03-06 11:17:12 AM  
Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.:Well, if he came back and said "we don't really need to cut that because we can achieve the same savings by cutting this, which will not interrupt this vital program" it would seem a wise and prudent move to do what he's suggesting. But telling him he can't because they've already said they'd cut the more vital ...

So you think that statements to Congress should be routinely ignored by federal bureaucrats.

Absolutely. Shoot Congress an email explaining they've found a better way. They'll understand.

Yeah, the Republican Congressional delegation has shown it self to be nothing if not reasonable and understanding.


Any problems with Congress are more likely to come from the other side. Make it pain, or something like that. But realistically, any lawmaker who publicly criticized a federal agency for finding a less painful way to cut their budget would be chum.
 
2013-03-06 11:17:58 AM  

Tommy Moo: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Except the sequester is nowhere near 20% of the federal budget. It's closer to 2%. And yes, if I were a hog buying $1000 hammers and $500 toilet seats, I could find a way to survive a 2% pay cut.

Obama is being a dick here, and I say that as a person who voted for him. This is a Republicanesque tactic: scorching the earth and shooting the hostage to make the other guy look bad.


Your confusing money already spent and mandated to be spent with budgets that can actually be cut. The cut is approximately 9.5% from every single defense budget. You don't get to pick and choose. Where I work, contracting (that's right I buy those fictictional $1000 hammers you are referring to), 95% of our annual budget is labor. So tell me, where else is the cut going to come from? That's why this sucks. Most organizations do not have places to cut. There isn't nearly as much excess spending in most organizations as you seem to think there is. And besides, restructuring contracts takes time and money too. There is no time, hence the cuts in the quickest place possible. If this continues past this fiscal year, we won't be facing a furlough, we'll start facing a RIF. This will hurt, and it will hurt bad, just as it was intended to do. They called it a poison pill for a reason.
 
2013-03-06 11:18:50 AM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: A: D=Good
B: R=Bad
C: Everything is still Bush's fault
D: You will be assimilated
E: You will be ostracized if you don't conform to A, B & C not wishing to become D.


only those that don't actually have an educated sense of the world and know what the fark is going on comes to such near sighted conclusions

/moderate republican
//my party makes me sick
///does that make me a bad person?
 
2013-03-06 11:19:24 AM  

Cletus C.: Any problems with Congress are more likely to come from the other side. Make it pain, or something like that. But realistically, any lawmaker who publicly criticized a federal agency for finding a less painful way to cut their budget would be chum.


What color is the sky on your world?
 
2013-03-06 11:19:25 AM  

verbaltoxin: Nevermind, I found it myself.


Oh god.  The comments.  THEY BURN!
 
2013-03-06 11:20:43 AM  
I was at least expecting someone fairly high up on the WH food chain, you know, maybe even a West Wing staffer ... not some rando USDA official in farking Atlanta.

With that said, how the fark do Republicans want to effect the sequester. So now: no cuts to Medicare, no cuts to Social Security (our base wants government out of those anyway), no cuts to defense, no cuts to popular programs ...

Do people honestly sit around thinking there's a top-secret Department of Waste, Bureau of Fraud, and Agency of Abuse that we could just cut, completely painlessly, and balance the budget?

1. Cap existing Social Security payments.
2. Have a means-tested Social Security Supplemental payment that gets the COLAs, gets the "we love old people" sort of increases, etc. This way hedge funde traders, union retirees, and other assorted fat and overweight cats don't get Social Security increases but those with no other support
3. Figure out how to implement deductibles for Medicare, and start funneling the (relatively healthy) 45-64 set into Medicare. Hospitals in Florida seem able to thrive so ignore the bleating from them, or maybe investigate their chargemaster codes that transform $0.01 aspirins into $1.50 aspirins. Again, why are we subsidizing the healthcare to healthy, wealthy retirees?
4. Cut defense.
5. Reduce loopholes such as the carried-interest exemption that lets hedge fundies get paid in interest and not regular income.
 
2013-03-06 11:24:15 AM  

Cletus C.: Any problems with Congress are more likely to come from the other side.


lol Not sure if serious, or trolling.
 
2013-03-06 11:24:27 AM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JerseyTim: I feel like we're spending about 99.9% of the time arguing about why there is a sequester and who is responsible and .1% of the time trying to do something about it.

Welcome to the fark politics tab.  This is where you're supposed to pick a team (as long it's the Democrats) and beat dead horses while turning a blind eye to what's actually happening.  If you hang in this tab long enough you will learn;

A:  D=Good
B:  R=Bad
C:  Everything is still Bush's fault
D:  You will be assimilated
E:  You will be ostracized if you don't conform to A, B & C not wishing to become D.


Need some help with that cross? It looks heavy, and after you get one of the nails in the others are tricky.
 
2013-03-06 11:25:21 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Cletus C.: Any problems with Congress are more likely to come from the other side. Make it pain, or something like that. But realistically, any lawmaker who publicly criticized a federal agency for finding a less painful way to cut their budget would be chum.

What color is the sky on your world?


It was a silly argument to begin with. The notion that federal agencies autonomously finding ways to cut their budgets without major impacts on vital programs certainly would leave them with hell to pay. Hell, I tells ya.

Everybody knows that to be universally true in your blue-sky world anyway.
 
2013-03-06 11:25:57 AM  
Smackledorfer:

I wish I could barf through my monitor into your eyes and mouth.
 Wow.
 
2013-03-06 11:26:09 AM  

stpickrell: I was at least expecting someone fairly high up on the WH food chain, you know, maybe even a West Wing staffer ... not some rando USDA official in farking Atlanta.

With that said, how the fark do Republicans want to effect the sequester. So now: no cuts to Medicare, no cuts to Social Security (our base wants government out of those anyway), no cuts to defense, no cuts to popular programs ...

Do people honestly sit around thinking there's a top-secret Department of Waste, Bureau of Fraud, and Agency of Abuse that we could just cut, completely painlessly, and balance the budget?

1. Cap existing Social Security payments.


I agree that this makes a lot of sense from where we stand now, but it will never happen, nor do I think it should.  Once SS is capped to a certain income level, it is no longer an entitlement that you pay into and get out what you paid in, it's a pure transfer from rich to poor.  Once you break that link, ALL of SS comes under fire and could be sunk by the RWEC as a socialist abomination that is no longer the SS that is so pure and must never go away (in name only).  It's a high stakes gamble that, to me, does not pay off 30 years down the line.  If we can find a way to obviate this problem, I'm all for it, but thinking a couple moves ahead helps make better planning today.

/Batmannig like a motherfarker
 
2013-03-06 11:27:32 AM  

TelemonianAjax: verbaltoxin: Nevermind, I found it myself.

Oh god.  The comments.  THEY BURN!


Yeah, I just skip all those. I don't have an ignore button everywhere. I kind of wish I did.
 
2013-03-06 11:27:42 AM  
Obama's motto is to never let a crisis go to waste, even if it is an invented crisis.
 
2013-03-06 11:28:53 AM  

NateGrey: Cletus C.: Any problems with Congress are more likely to come from the other side.

lol Not sure if serious, or trolling.


You know me, NateGrey. Or at least you feel compelled to argue against everything I say. If you I'm a troll you shouldn't need to grab snippets of a longer conversation so that context is gone.
 
2013-03-06 11:29:14 AM  

justinguarini4ever: Obama's motto is to never let a crisis go to waste, even if it is an invented crisis.


Citation? Motto? Don't think he has ever said any of those words.
 
2013-03-06 11:30:09 AM  
Of course the sequester is supposed to be a bad thing.

It's supposed to be a disincentive to farking around and not balancing the budget.

It's a shame the only way to get government employees to stop farking around is to charge them money from their paychecks every day the budget isn't balanced.
 
2013-03-06 11:30:16 AM  

NateGrey: justinguarini4ever: Obama's motto is to never let a crisis go to waste, even if it is an invented crisis.

Citation? Motto? Don't think he has ever said any of those words.


It's something Rahm Emmanuel said, and while it's morally suspect it does certainly speak to expediency.
 
2013-03-06 11:30:25 AM  

justinguarini4ever: Obama's motto is to never let a crisis go to waste, even if it is an invented crisis.


Eventually, the GOP might just figure that out and stop inventing crises. They're 0 for 2 so far this year, about to be 0 for 3.
 
2013-03-06 11:32:01 AM  

stpickrell: I was at least expecting someone fairly high up on the WH food chain, you know, maybe even a West Wing staffer ... not some rando USDA official in farking Atlanta.

With that said, how the fark do Republicans want to effect the sequester. So now: no cuts to Medicare, no cuts to Social Security (our base wants government out of those anyway), no cuts to defense, no cuts to popular programs ...

Do people honestly sit around thinking there's a top-secret Department of Waste, Bureau of Fraud, and Agency of Abuse that we could just cut, completely painlessly, and balance the budget?

1. Cap existing Social Security payments.
2. Have a means-tested Social Security Supplemental payment that gets the COLAs, gets the "we love old people" sort of increases, etc. This way hedge funde traders, union retirees, and other assorted fat and overweight cats don't get Social Security increases but those with no other support
3. Figure out how to implement deductibles for Medicare, and start funneling the (relatively healthy) 45-64 set into Medicare. Hospitals in Florida seem able to thrive so ignore the bleating from them, or maybe investigate their chargemaster codes that transform $0.01 aspirins into $1.50 aspirins. Again, why are we subsidizing the healthcare to healthy, wealthy retirees?
4. Cut defense.
5. Reduce loopholes such as the carried-interest exemption that lets hedge fundies get paid in interest and not regular income.


1. How? Where? To whom and at what level?
2. It seems attractive on its surface, but I need to see how this could hypothetically be implemented.
3. Why not just have single payer? Everyone gets covered, healthcare costs go down, and nobody is getting subsidized.
4. How? Where?
5. Another one that sounds good, but I'd like to see more data.
 
2013-03-06 11:32:21 AM  

fluffy2097: Of course the sequester is supposed to be a bad thing.

It's supposed to be a disincentive to farking around and not balancing the budget.

It's a shame the only way to get government employees to stop farking around is to charge them money from their paychecks every day the budget isn't balanced.


huh? Congress' pay isn't affected at all. It's the peons who are affected. They didn't creat this mess.
 
2013-03-06 11:33:44 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: Philip Francis Queeg: BillCo: It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?

Are public tours of the White House a vital function of the Federal Government? That seems like a pretty smart cut to me.

Tours are done by volunteers...AND COST NOTHING


THEY'RE STILL A FORM OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAM YOU SOCIALIST COMMUNIST RED SONOFAB*TCH
 
2013-03-06 11:33:59 AM  

somedude210: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:

A: D=Good
B: R=Bad
C: Everything is still Bush's fault
D: You will be assimilated
E: You will be ostracized if you don't conform to A, B & C not wishing to become D.

only those that lurk for years in the politics tab actually have an educated sense of the fark politics tab and know what the fark is going on in the fark politics tab come to such enlightened conclusions.

FTFY

 
2013-03-06 11:34:47 AM  

Jobber8742: huh? Congress' pay isn't affected at all. It's the peons who are affected. They didn't creat this mess.


yeah. That's my point and the problem.

Imagine if we fined congress critters $10,000 a day for not creating a balanced budget after a certain date.
 
2013-03-06 11:35:25 AM  

NateGrey: False Link
Republicans love their FWD: FWD: FWD: Obama worse evar


Interesting. And that would explain why one of those aircraft carriers has a pronounced list. I stand corrected.
 
2013-03-06 11:37:20 AM  

fluffy2097: Jobber8742: huh? Congress' pay isn't affected at all. It's the peons who are affected. They didn't creat this mess.

yeah. That's my point and the problem.

Imagine if we fined congress critters $10,000 a day for not creating a balanced budget after a certain date.


Then the richest congresspeople could hold the rest of the Congress hostage for whatever ridiculous budget items they want.

"Oh what's that? You don't want to privatize social security? Guess I'll just hang out here with my millions of dollars while you miss your mortgage payments. Go ahead and sweat it, I can hold out for a couple of years."
 
2013-03-06 11:38:15 AM  

somedude210: clane: You're being lied to everyday by the Democrats and the liberal press... It's not a cut; they simply reduced the amount of the INCREASE!

They still got an increase just not as much as originally wanted. It's like you walk in the house tell your wife i got my raise today i was making $150 now i am making $160 but i thought i was going get $170 with the raise so now we can't feed the kids or stay in this house.

Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth. THE TRUTH

Dear god, you're serious, aren't you?

I've heard this point by a few right wingers and yet I can't place the origins or logic of it.

as to Fox telling us the truth, how's that Benghazi thing working out for ya? Romney winning the election? How about how all us liberals are a bunch of money-grubbing assholes and only Reagan was a true conservative who never did anything like sell weapons to our enemies, give amnesty to illegals or destroy our mental health system so people like you can have access to the public


clane:
Fox said Romney won the election?  umm ok  So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died  because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen.  my god NBC and CNN lies more times a day than i can count and you have to go back 30 years to think of something...
 
2013-03-06 11:38:37 AM  

HAMMERTOE: NateGrey: False Link
Republicans love their FWD: FWD: FWD: Obama worse evar

Interesting. And that would explain why one of those aircraft carriers has a pronounced list. I stand corrected.



Wouldn't it of been easier to fact check something before posting it? What is it about Republicans and lying.
 
2013-03-06 11:40:40 AM  

verbaltoxin: Tommy Moo: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Except the sequester is nowhere near 20% of the federal budget. It's closer to 2%. And yes, if I were a hog buying $1000 hammers and $500 toilet seats, I could find a way to survive a 2% pay cut.

Obama is being a dick here, and I say that as a person who voted for him. This is a Republicanesque tactic: scorching the earth and shooting the hostage to make the other guy look bad.

Yeah, how dare he write a bill by himself and force Congress to pass it at gunpoint. Oh right, that's now how legislation works at all.


His executive power to decide what bills to pay circumvents Congress. This isn't about legislation. He is deliberately, unilaterally choosing to short change the most publicly visible and necessary programs in order to make the Republicans look as bad as possible.

"I have to cut $50 million from the FAA. Let's see... I could order the agency to switch from paper to wireless and consolidate the redundant administrative staff. NAH! I think I'll fire all the air traffic controllers so everyone dies in fiery plane crashes. That will show the American people how evil the Republicans are for forcing this sequester!"
 
2013-03-06 11:41:22 AM  
clane: If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...

somedude210:
how is this not a cut? We aren't spending nearly as much as we were, we've stopped putting money to certain things. Is that not a definition of a cut?

this idea was brought about by the supercommittee as a way to bring both sides together and keep them from farking this economy up. Obviously, one side didn't care.

So what lies are we being told?

clane:
You're being lied to everyday by the Democrats and the liberal press... It's not a cut; they simply reduced the amount of the INCREASE!

They still got an increase just not as much as originally wanted.  It's like you walk in the house tell your wife i got my raise today i was making $150 now i am making $160 but i thought i was going get $170 with the raise so now we can't feed the kids or stay in this house.

Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth.  THE TRUTH


Raharu: 
Oh clane:, clane: clane: clane:. Whatever are we going to do with you.

clane:
that's your comeback....  it's sad... i feel sorry for you
 
2013-03-06 11:41:41 AM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: somedude210: AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe:

A: D=Good
B: R=Bad
C: Everything is still Bush's fault
D: You will be assimilated
E: You will be ostracized if you don't conform to A, B & C not wishing to become D.

only those that lurk for years in the politics tab actually have an educated sense of the fark politics tab and know what the fark is going on in the fark politics tab come to such enlightened conclusions.

FTFY


Yes, the several Republican Farkers who've left the party over the years assimilated. They didn't find reasons to question what was coming out of Bullsh*t Mountain.
 
2013-03-06 11:45:15 AM  
GOP Party of Personal Responsibility.

Step 1: We created a fake financial crisis and are now being viewed as vile politicians.....compromise (98% of what we want) with a sequester.
Step 2: Allow Tea Tards to flourish stopping any fiscally responsible response to sequester deadline, attempt to blame your actions on the President
Step 3: Realize that people aren't as stupid as your base and are blaming you, try to spin the sequester as a good thing.
 
2013-03-06 11:47:38 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Then the richest congresspeople could hold the rest of the Congress hostage for whatever ridiculous budget items they want.



They would fall upon each other like starving wolves if that happened. It would be glorious.
 
2013-03-06 11:48:49 AM  

clane: because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen.


It didn't happen. At least, not in the way your fevered brain imagines it did.
 
2013-03-06 11:50:45 AM  

I_C_Weener: I_C_Weener: St_Francis_P: The talking points are always a little confusing, but lately they're just flat contradictory. The sequester is and isn't bad, but the government is hoarding bullets to shoot patriots who riot because of the sequester, but the GOP wanted to cut spending the whole time, but it's Obama's fault. There, did I cover all the salient points?

It was Obama's idea.  It was designed to punish, not cut.  It has military spending cuts in it (not just cuts to future increases) and yet the Democrats aren't happy with that either.

Now, I think we've got it.

Oh, and Republicans already gave in on Tax Increases, now it is time for the Democrats to give in on spending cuts.


For the fifth time? I really can't wrap my head around this idea that Democrats have not given up any spending cuts. We already had trillions in cuts before any revenues ever were agreed on. And we just had even more cuts. Cuts have always been a part of it, so why this constant refrain that Democrats need to *finally* give up some spending cuts.
 
2013-03-06 11:51:56 AM  

Tommy Moo: verbaltoxin: Tommy Moo: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Except the sequester is nowhere near 20% of the federal budget. It's closer to 2%. And yes, if I were a hog buying $1000 hammers and $500 toilet seats, I could find a way to survive a 2% pay cut.

Obama is being a dick here, and I say that as a person who voted for him. This is a Republicanesque tactic: scorching the earth and shooting the hostage to make the other guy look bad.

Yeah, how dare he write a bill by himself and force Congress to pass it at gunpoint. Oh right, that's now how legislation works at all.

His executive power to decide what bills to pay circumvents Congress. This isn't about legislation. He is deliberately, unilaterally choosing to short change the most publicly visible and necessary programs in order to make the Republicans look as bad as possible.

"I have to cut $50 million from the FAA. Let's see... I could order the agency to switch from paper to wireless and consolidate the redundant administrative staff. NAH! I think I'll fire all the air traffic controllers so everyone dies in fiery plane crashes. That will show the American people how evil the Republicans are for forcing this sequester!"


The President can veto legislation but he can be overridden. Short of that, the Republicans could've just passed a different bill, or made the compromise from the supercommittee like they were supposed to in the first place. This isn't secret info we're discussing here. The Republicans made this bad faith agreement just like the White House did. They knew damn well what the sequester meant, but didn't care; because it was 2011, and they were damn sure they were right, math was wrong, and Obama was going to get the boot in 2012 anyway. They didn't think ahead. They didn't plan for any alternatives. This is the price they pay for being so short-sighted.

See, this is what happens when we start playing the, "Both sides are bad" game. How about we just admit this was f*cking royally stupid, but since it's out there, the White House now has to strong-arm Congress back to the negotiating table, so they can un-f*ck the country a little? Part of that means telling people just how stupid this sequester is, so Republicans start thinking of electoral consequences and do their f*cking jobs.
 
2013-03-06 11:52:30 AM  

MattStafford: Tomahawk513: Ya know, that might not be the best economic policy during a recession. It's been covered in practically every thread, especially those with Matt Stafford, but effective recession-based economic policy involves the fed spending money, even if it has to borrow it, to stimulate growth. Once the economy gets back on its feet as it's just starting to do now (see recovering housing market, DJI peak), spending should start to decrease while revenue increases due to more people paying more taxes. Then government should repay debt.

That is only an effective policy if the money is spent to actually stimulate growth.  The problem that many people have is that they confuse consumption with growth.  Cutting everyone a check for a hundred bucks might stimulate consumption, but it doesn't stimulate growth.  Investing that money in infrastructure or education, on the other hand, might actually stimulate growth.


Before I even get into "Growth" please:

Define Value.
 
2013-03-06 11:55:25 AM  

clane: somedude210: clane: You're being lied to everyday by the Democrats and the liberal press... It's not a cut; they simply reduced the amount of the INCREASE!

They still got an increase just not as much as originally wanted. It's like you walk in the house tell your wife i got my raise today i was making $150 now i am making $160 but i thought i was going get $170 with the raise so now we can't feed the kids or stay in this house.

Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth. THE TRUTH

Dear god, you're serious, aren't you?

I've heard this point by a few right wingers and yet I can't place the origins or logic of it.

as to Fox telling us the truth, how's that Benghazi thing working out for ya? Romney winning the election? How about how all us liberals are a bunch of money-grubbing assholes and only Reagan was a true conservative who never did anything like sell weapons to our enemies, give amnesty to illegals or destroy our mental health system so people like you can have access to the public

clane:
Fox said Romney won the election?  umm ok  So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died  because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen.  my god NBC and CNN lies more times a day than i can count and you have to go back 30 years to think of something...




Oh yeah, this is good, please proceed clane:, please do, clane:'s collage is coming along nicely now, but I need more.
 
2013-03-06 11:58:22 AM  

NateGrey: Wouldn't it of been easier to fact check something before posting it? What is it about Republicans and lying.


Considering the whole thread is about the current administration sending out communications saying, "Don't make liars out of us," I'd say that the Republicans don't exactly have a monopoly on it.
 
2013-03-06 11:58:50 AM  

clane: Fox said Romney won the election?  umm ok  So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died  because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen.  my god NBC and CNN lies more times a day than i can count and you have to go back 30 years to think of something...


I just bolded the reason nobody here one of the reasons you're not taken seriously. Think about it for a bit. Please.
 
2013-03-06 11:58:56 AM  

I_C_Weener: GAT_00: I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.

Nope.  But I'm not too sympathetic to people biatching about hitting the recession 4 years after the rest of us did.


You should be. The current Republican tactic is to make life miserable for unprotected workers in the private sector and then point at the unionized and government employees with the benefits and protections YOU SHOULD HAVE and say "aren't you jealous of them? They think they're better than you!"

And you fell for it. Chump.
 
2013-03-06 11:59:42 AM  

Weaver95: jaytkay: BillCo: It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people. Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?

Congress wrote the law. Congress passed the law.

Congress could have repealed the law last week by passing a one sentence bill,

And it's Obama's fault for NOT forcing Congress to behave themselves.  Because REASONS!  so many REASONS!  this is obviously all the fault of Obama's jedi mind meldtricks.


FTFY
 
2013-03-06 12:00:06 PM  

corronchilejano: clane: Fox said Romney won the election?  umm ok  So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died  because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen.  my god NBC and CNN lies more times a day than i can count and you have to go back 30 years to think of something...

I just bolded the reason nobody here one of the reasons why you're not taken seriously by anyone. Think about it for a bit. Please.


Wow, that did not come out right. I need to have breakfast more often. FTFM.
 
2013-03-06 12:01:42 PM  

Tommy Moo: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Except the sequester is nowhere near 20% of the federal budget. It's closer to 2%. And yes, if I were a hog buying $1000 hammers and $500 toilet seats, I could find a way to survive a 2% pay cut.

Obama is being a dick here, and I say that as a person who voted for him. This is a Republicanesque tactic: scorching the earth and shooting the hostage to make the other guy look bad.


How many days does a normal person work in a week?

How much would their pay be cut if they were forced to take one of those days off, every week, without pay, as a percentage of their total pay.

Now look up the word Furlough.

Then wallow in your shame.
 
2013-03-06 12:04:12 PM  

Joe USer: Bloody William: sigdiamond2000: So I've been out of the loop lately, scrimshawing and getting my yacht ready for the America's Cup...

Is this guy a "thing" around here now?

Yep. He's tedious, though. Cookie-cutter threadshiatter, no real responses, constantly relates everything to how liberals suck, doesn't even try to put up anything like an argument. Just dull.

A troll without panache is truly a horrible thing to behold.


Let's give it up for MattStafford.  Raising the bar around this place in recent months.  This guy?  I'm not even sure who that's supposed to be fun for.
 
2013-03-06 12:04:24 PM  
The gops efforts to control media narratives are becoming increasingly transparent.
 
2013-03-06 12:06:46 PM  

BeesNuts: MattStafford: Tomahawk513: Ya know, that might not be the best economic policy during a recession. It's been covered in practically every thread, especially those with Matt Stafford, but effective recession-based economic policy involves the fed spending money, even if it has to borrow it, to stimulate growth. Once the economy gets back on its feet as it's just starting to do now (see recovering housing market, DJI peak), spending should start to decrease while revenue increases due to more people paying more taxes. Then government should repay debt.

That is only an effective policy if the money is spent to actually stimulate growth.  The problem that many people have is that they confuse consumption with growth.  Cutting everyone a check for a hundred bucks might stimulate consumption, but it doesn't stimulate growth.  Investing that money in infrastructure or education, on the other hand, might actually stimulate growth.

Before I even get into "Growth" please:

Define Value.


Simple. Imagine two guys on a deserted island. one has a fish, and the other has a coconut. As they are sitting there contemplating the relative strengths of their respective economic positions, a government contractor arrives to build a bridge to another nearby, uninhabited island.  "Value" is how much gold bullion each can expect to receive from that contractor for their individual goods
 
2013-03-06 12:08:50 PM  
Maybe if 0bama spent more time writing a budget and less time complaining about how bad it'll be without a budget, we'd have a budget?
 
2013-03-06 12:11:29 PM  

Tyrano Soros: Maybe if 0bama spent more time writing a budget and less time complaining about how bad it'll be without a budget, we'd have a budget?


He should also do other things that aren't his job like plan rocket launches and grounds keeping.
 
2013-03-06 12:11:57 PM  

BeesNuts: Before I even get into "Growth" please:

Define Value.


Define value?  In what context?

The deciding factor about whether or not we should borrow and spend money is the following:  how will the country look after the spending is complete and the debt paid off.  If you borrow money and use it to fund consumption, how will the economy be changed after the spending is stopped and the debt is paid down?  If you borrow money to build a necessary bridge, how will the economy be changed after the spending is stopped and the debt is paid down?  It isn't complicated.
 
2013-03-06 12:12:20 PM  

clane: So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing


This is your idea of "truth"?
 
2013-03-06 12:12:50 PM  

Tyrano Soros: Maybe if 0bama spent more time writing a budget


The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 7
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; "

Bad Troll. No treat for you.

Also

0bama

*** DRINK! ***
 
2013-03-06 12:13:46 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Simple. Imagine two guys on a deserted island. one has a fish, and the other has a coconut. As they are sitting there contemplating the relative strengths of their respective economic positions, a government contractor arrives to build a bridge to another nearby, uninhabited island. "Value" is how much gold bullion each can expect to receive from that contractor for their individual goods


Do you guys honestly not agree with me?  That if you borrow money, spending it on consumption is not a good idea?  Borrow hundreds of millions of dollars, give it to the population, and pray for economic success?  Christ.
 
2013-03-06 12:15:31 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: BeesNuts: MattStafford: Tomahawk513: Ya know, that might not be the best economic policy during a recession. It's been covered in practically every thread, especially those with Matt Stafford, but effective recession-based economic policy involves the fed spending money, even if it has to borrow it, to stimulate growth. Once the economy gets back on its feet as it's just starting to do now (see recovering housing market, DJI peak), spending should start to decrease while revenue increases due to more people paying more taxes. Then government should repay debt.

That is only an effective policy if the money is spent to actually stimulate growth.  The problem that many people have is that they confuse consumption with growth.  Cutting everyone a check for a hundred bucks might stimulate consumption, but it doesn't stimulate growth.  Investing that money in infrastructure or education, on the other hand, might actually stimulate growth.

Before I even get into "Growth" please:

Define Value.

Simple. Imagine two guys on a deserted island. one has a fish, and the other has a coconut. As they are sitting there contemplating the relative strengths of their respective economic positions, a government contractor arrives to build a bridge to another nearby, uninhabited island.  "Value" is how much gold bullion each can expect to receive from that contractor for their individual goods


lol
 
2013-03-06 12:16:41 PM  

clane: Fox said Romney won the election? umm ok So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen. my god NBC and CNN lies more times a day than i can count and you have to go back 30 years to think of something...



Forget it. Stupid libs will just come back with some nonsense about how the Republican House cut those programs, as they were elected to do, and conveniently forget that 0bama is commander-in-chief of the embassies he has, not the embassies he wants.
 
2013-03-06 12:17:24 PM  

clane: Fox said Romney won the election? umm ok So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen. my god NBC and CNN lies more times a day than i can count and you have to go back 30 years to think of something...


You seemed to miss the point of the Reagan comparison. He's hailed by Fox as the second coming of jesus or a real conservative or some such when he's hardly such yet there they are, chanting about how if reagan was here, he'd kick all y'all's asses.

What lies, exactly, has MSNBC, CNN, et. al. been pushing? and what's the truth?

And what golf game was he at during Benghazi? since it occurred on 9/11, I believe he was at some memorial somewhere, since that's been a thing for presidents to do since 2001
 
2013-03-06 12:17:46 PM  

mrshowrules: Tyrano Soros: Maybe if 0bama spent more time writing a budget and less time complaining about how bad it'll be without a budget, we'd have a budget?

He should also do other things that aren't his job like plan rocket launches and grounds keeping.



No thanks. Playing golf is what got us into this mess.
 
2013-03-06 12:18:58 PM  

Tyrano Soros: Forget it. Stupid libs will just come back with some nonsense about how the Republican House cut those programs, as they were elected to do, and conveniently forget that 0bama is commander-in-chief of the embassies he has, not the embassies he wants.


lol wut?
 
2013-03-06 12:19:55 PM  

MattStafford: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Simple. Imagine two guys on a deserted island. one has a fish, and the other has a coconut. As they are sitting there contemplating the relative strengths of their respective economic positions, a government contractor arrives to build a bridge to another nearby, uninhabited island. "Value" is how much gold bullion each can expect to receive from that contractor for their individual goods

Do you guys honestly not agree with me?  That if you borrow money, spending it on consumption is not a good idea?  Borrow hundreds of millions of dollars, give it to the population, and pray for economic success?  Christ.


Other than George Bush, who did exactly that, who the hell advocates this position? I've certainly never said we should "Borrow hundreds of millions of dollars [and] give it to the population" So  it seems like your entire "point" is an argument against a position nobody holds.

Well done. YOU WIN!
 
2013-03-06 12:20:59 PM  

Tyrano Soros: No thanks. Playing golf is what got us into this mess.


I like when the new trolls come out to play, I just hope they live up to the old class from back in the day

/I miss EnviroDude sometimes
 
2013-03-06 12:21:06 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Tyrano Soros: Maybe if 0bama spent more time writing a budget

The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 7
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; "



So why hasn't 0bama shown any leadership and forced the Senate to adopt any of the House's budget bills? Because he'd rather play politics and golf then help the American people.
 
2013-03-06 12:22:46 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Other than George Bush, who did exactly that, who the hell advocates this position? I've certainly never said we should "Borrow hundreds of millions of dollars [and] give it to the population" So it seems like your entire "point" is an argument against a position nobody holds.

Well done. YOU WIN!


Um, everyone who supports Medicare/Social Security support borrowing money and distributing it to the population.
 
2013-03-06 12:22:47 PM  
Let me guess: the source of the emails is t­ota­ll­y­t­he­re­al­o­ba­m­a­[nospam-﹫-backwards]swenxo­f*com, isn't it?
 
2013-03-06 12:23:17 PM  

MattStafford: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Simple. Imagine two guys on a deserted island. one has a fish, and the other has a coconut. As they are sitting there contemplating the relative strengths of their respective economic positions, a government contractor arrives to build a bridge to another nearby, uninhabited island. "Value" is how much gold bullion each can expect to receive from that contractor for their individual goods

Do you guys honestly not agree with me?  That if you borrow money, spending it on consumption is not a good idea?  Borrow hundreds of millions of dollars, give it to the population, and pray for economic success?  Christ.



I prefer the previous administration's method of borrowing hundreds of Billions of dollars and using it to blow up brown people determined to strike the US for economic success.
 
2013-03-06 12:25:18 PM  

Tyrano Soros: I prefer the previous administration's method of borrowing hundreds of Billions of dollars and using it to blow up brown people determined to strike the US for economic success.


Both policies are bad!  Only borrow money to invest in productive programs!  Education, technology, infrastructure - otherwise, pay for it via tax revenue.
 
2013-03-06 12:25:32 PM  

somedude210: Tyrano Soros: No thanks. Playing golf is what got us into this mess.

I like when the new trolls come out to play, I just hope they live up to the old class from back in the day

/I miss EnviroDude sometimes


I don't. We haven't had entertaining trolls since the Marine Core days, if you ask me. Case in point:

Tyrano Soros: So why hasn't 0bama shown any leadership and forced the Senate


Dude seriously, you need to get funnier PDQ if you want to stay off everyone's ignore list
 
2013-03-06 12:25:35 PM  

Tyrano Soros: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Tyrano Soros: Maybe if 0bama spent more time writing a budget

The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 7
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; "


So why hasn't 0bama shown any leadership and forced the Senate to adopt any of the House's budget bills? Because he'd rather play politics and golf then help the American people.


You're doing well so far. Keeping the responses short and shrift. Just don't f*ck it up by pretending you're a dentist or economist.
 
2013-03-06 12:26:23 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: clane: because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen.

It didn't happen. At least, not in the way your fevered

Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease ridden brain imagines it did.


FTFY

it's the only explanation for how/what it posts...
 
2013-03-06 12:26:28 PM  

Tyrano Soros: So why hasn't 0bama shown any leadership and forced the Senate to adopt any of the House's budget bills? Because he'd rather play politics and golf then help the American people.


you have a weird fascination with golf, you know that?

What, exactly, can Obama do to the senate that will force them to pass budget bills that have passed?

oh, and you have to do it constitutionally, and you need to have them pass a budget bill that was passed under this congress (ie, after January)

/hint, there's nothing he can constitutionally to jumpstart the Senate to do anything
//also, the House hasn't passed any budget bills since the new congress took hold
 
2013-03-06 12:28:07 PM  
First of all, drop the Benghazi crap already. 3000 people were dying in NYC and DC, and all Bush could do was sit there reading his upside-down book and look clueless. This cluelessness was further on display in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner nearly a decade before bin Ladin met justice, simply because Bush got Saddam Hussein, creating way more problems in Iraq that were there already.

Next, kindly remember that it's Congress responsibility to write and pass the budget, and send it to the President.

It's people like you who use such broken reasoning in the face of the facts that allow Marxists to be seen in a better light, in comparison to your candidates of choice. Quit running poster-children for corporate greed, bigotry, and religious arrogance and hypocrisy for public office. I can't even defend Republican ideals anymore without getting my ass handed to me. Your treating the entire country and the lower classes as your private cash-cow, to be exploited at whim, will mean the eventual death of your party, and the unwashed masses will rise up and feast upon your bones, figuratively speaking.
 
2013-03-06 12:29:38 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: BeesNuts: MattStafford: Tomahawk513: Ya know, that might not be the best economic policy during a recession. It's been covered in practically every thread, especially those with Matt Stafford, but effective recession-based economic policy involves the fed spending money, even if it has to borrow it, to stimulate growth. Once the economy gets back on its feet as it's just starting to do now (see recovering housing market, DJI peak), spending should start to decrease while revenue increases due to more people paying more taxes. Then government should repay debt.

That is only an effective policy if the money is spent to actually stimulate growth.  The problem that many people have is that they confuse consumption with growth.  Cutting everyone a check for a hundred bucks might stimulate consumption, but it doesn't stimulate growth.  Investing that money in infrastructure or education, on the other hand, might actually stimulate growth.

Before I even get into "Growth" please:

Define Value.

Simple. Imagine two guys on a deserted island. one has a fish, and the other has a coconut. As they are sitting there contemplating the relative strengths of their respective economic positions, a government contractor arrives to build a bridge to another nearby, uninhabited island.  "Value" is how much gold bullion each can expect to receive from that contractor for their individual goods

.

I swear to god that exchange is my favorite economics discussion.  Ever.  In any context.  Like watching a dog trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle.  "I'm pretty sure you lack the necessary equipment to participate in this, dog."  Except dogs don't usually insist that they received their opposable thumbs from a prestigious university for months while getting snot all over your puzzle.
 
2013-03-06 12:29:57 PM  
The scary is for how stupid the tag is.
 
2013-03-06 12:32:56 PM  
MattStafford:
Do you guys honestly not agree with me?


YES


I don't know how many times or ways it has to be explained to you.  Yes, we disagree with you.  Yes we disagree with you .  Yeswedisagreewithyou.
 
2013-03-06 12:33:59 PM  

CaptainToast: The scary is for how stupid the tag is.


It's kind of scary that the preferred option is to make the cuts as painful as possible.
 
2013-03-06 12:37:17 PM  

Tyrano Soros: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Tyrano Soros: Maybe if 0bama spent more time writing a budget

The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 7
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; "


So why hasn't 0bama shown any leadership and forced the Senate to adopt any of the House's budget bills? Because he'd rather play politics and golf then help the American people.


I realize you're a troll but Presidents can't "force" the legislative branch to do anything. That's why they're not dictators.
 
2013-03-06 12:38:01 PM  

Tyrano Soros: So why hasn't 0bama shown any leadership and forced the Senate to adopt any of the House's budget bills? Because he'd rather play politics and golf then help the American people.


It's not his job to force one house of Congress to accept the demands of the other. It's incumbent on the two houses to work it out between themselves. The President only has authority to either accept or veto the resulting compromise. Now certainly he can suggest options and even try to influence the direction that the legislation may take, but he cannot force them to do anything at all. IOW, if the House is determined to present themselves as fools there is nothing the President can do to stop them.
 
2013-03-06 12:38:11 PM  

Moosecakes: so why this constant refrain that Democrats need to *finally* give up some spending cuts.


Because I_C_Weener is lying.
 
2013-03-06 12:40:04 PM  

somedude210: you have a weird fascination with golf, you know that?



So does 0bama, apparently, or we wouldn't have ever had a Benghazi.
 
2013-03-06 12:40:47 PM  
I honestly don't understand how so many people can be so willfully ignorant of an obvious truth.  If you borrow money, you better use it for something good, or it is going to suck when you have to pay it back.  The fact that you might be a sovereign country has no bearing on that universal, immutable truth.
 
2013-03-06 12:43:43 PM  

Cletus C.: It's kind of scary that the preferred option is to make the cuts as painful as possible.


It's kind of scary that the Republicans could conceivably run the next election on the campaign that Obama deliberately targeted the people he could do the most harm to with this sequester. After all, it's not even equal to the amount the budget was supposed to rise, he already got one tax increase on January first, and everybody else is having to tighten their belts, but the Democrats have become so self-important that the mere idea of wielding less power by spending less money is sacrilege to them. (Don't forget Pelosi and Maxine Waters' recent appeals.)
 
2013-03-06 12:44:48 PM  
You mean Obama may be deliberately trying to fulfill his ohmahgahdserquester! doom and gloom narrative?

I, for one, am shocked he could be that big of an asshole.
 
2013-03-06 12:45:34 PM  
ugh seriously give it up, you aren't even funny
 
2013-03-06 12:46:34 PM  

Tyrano Soros: somedude210: you have a weird fascination with golf, you know that?


So does 0bama, apparently, or we wouldn't have ever had a Benghazi.


Oh dear christ, are you dense. He wasn't farking golfing, and the only people saying that he was all have a bone to pick with him already because he's democrat/black/decent human being

But since you seem to equate 4 dead in Libya to be more of a thing than 3000 dead in the US, why was Bush reading to children during 9/11? Why wasn't he in D.C. doing...something?! Hmm? What about that tough guy?

But explain to me, what, exactly, Obama could've done instead of "golfing" to prevent Benghazi?
 
2013-03-06 12:47:25 PM  
So they found a memo that basically says, "don't make us liars by cutting shiat we said was untouchable."

Oh, my!
 
2013-03-06 12:48:01 PM  

MattStafford: I honestly don't understand how so many people can be so willfully ignorant of an obvious truth.  If you borrow money, you better use it for something good, or it is going to suck when you have to pay it back.  The fact that you might be a sovereign country has no bearing on that universal, immutable truth.


The problem comes in the definition of "something good". Do you really think that there is some secret "Department of Finding Bad Ways To Piss Away Money"? The simple fact is that every single dollar that is spent by the government is directly in response to a request for that dollar from someone that presented a reasonable case for that expenditure. Now maybe neither you nor I agree with that expenditure, but somebody convinced Congress (not the President) that it was a good idea.
 
2013-03-06 12:50:40 PM  

MattStafford: Um, everyone who supports Medicare/Social Security support borrowing money and distributing it to the population.


MattStafford: Only borrow money to invest in productive programs! Education,


Ah, I see.

Borrowing to educate kids GOOD
Borrowing to keep poor people from living in squalor or dying from preventable illness BAD
 
2013-03-06 12:51:28 PM  

somedude210: ...why was Bush reading to children during 9/11?


Please, why do people insist on perpetuating this lie? Bush was not reading to the children. He was looking at the pictures. The children were reading quite well on their own.
 
2013-03-06 12:52:33 PM  

MattStafford: I honestly don't understand how so many people can be so willfully ignorant of an obvious truth.  If you borrow money, you better use it for something good, or it is going to suck when you have to pay it back.  The fact that you might be a sovereign country has no bearing on that universal, immutable truth.

 
2013-03-06 12:53:26 PM  

BillCo: It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?


Do you understand what the  point of all this was? This was  not supposed to go into effect,  because it was supposed to threaten Congress into doing their jobs. It's a punishment.  It's supposed to be public and suck ass. And it's great that it hasn't killed anyone after five days, but money does not work that way to begin with.

You're complaining about something that is working  exactly the way it's supposed to.
 
2013-03-06 12:54:35 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Borrowing to educate kids GOOD
Borrowing to keep poor people from living in squalor or dying from preventable illness BAD


Correct.  We should keep poor people from living in squalor or dying via tax revenue.  If we keep them from living in squalor/dying via borrowing, we're going to have a heckuva time when we can no longer borrow.
 
2013-03-06 12:55:27 PM  

somedude210: Tyrano Soros: somedude210: you have a weird fascination with golf, you know that?


So does 0bama, apparently, or we wouldn't have ever had a Benghazi.

Oh dear christ, are you dense. He wasn't farking golfing, and the only people saying that he was all have a bone to pick with him already because he's democrat/black/decent human being

But since you seem to equate 4 dead in Libya to be more of a thing than 3000 dead in the US, why was Bush reading to children during 9/11? Why wasn't he in D.C. doing...something?! Hmm? What about that tough guy?

But explain to me, what, exactly, Obama could've done instead of "golfing" to prevent Benghazi?



I may be way off here, but it looks like he's making fun of clane.
 
2013-03-06 12:55:47 PM  

clane: If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...

...
Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth.  THE TRUTH

img.math-fail.com
 
2013-03-06 12:56:19 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: The problem comes in the definition of "something good". Do you really think that there is some secret "Department of Finding Bad Ways To Piss Away Money"? The simple fact is that every single dollar that is spent by the government is directly in response to a request for that dollar from someone that presented a reasonable case for that expenditure. Now maybe neither you nor I agree with that expenditure, but somebody convinced Congress (not the President) that it was a good idea.


Yeah, it's called the Department of Defense.  And it isn't much of a secret.

I might think it is a good idea for me to live like a king.  If I requisition the government for 100 million dollars, and know a senator or two, and they give me that 100 million dollars - financed via borrowing of course - are you saying that it was a smart economic decision?
 
2013-03-06 12:56:20 PM  

MattStafford: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Simple. Imagine two guys on a deserted island. one has a fish, and the other has a coconut. As they are sitting there contemplating the relative strengths of their respective economic positions, a government contractor arrives to build a bridge to another nearby, uninhabited island. "Value" is how much gold bullion each can expect to receive from that contractor for their individual goods

Do you guys honestly not agree with me?  That if you borrow money, spending it on consumption is not a good idea?  Borrow hundreds of millions of dollars, give it to the population, and pray for economic success?  Christ.


Not only do we not agree with you, thankfully the economists who actually matter do not agree with you and in fact would laugh at you if you said something like this to them.
 
2013-03-06 12:56:45 PM  

Fart_Machine: Tyrano Soros: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Tyrano Soros: Maybe if 0bama spent more time writing a budget

The Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 7
"All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; "


So why hasn't 0bama shown any leadership and forced the Senate to adopt any of the House's budget bills? Because he'd rather play politics and golf then help the American people.

I realize you're a troll but Presidents can't "force" the legislative branch to do anything. That's why they're not dictators.


DC reporters don't seem to realize it. All they asked him when the sequester took effect was how come he couldn't force Congress to stay at work and pass a new law.
 
2013-03-06 12:56:59 PM  

MattStafford: I honestly don't understand how so many people can be so willfully ignorant of an obvious truth.  If you borrow money, you better use it for something good, or it is going to suck when you have to pay it back.  The fact that you might be a sovereign country has no bearing on that universal, immutable truth.


I think I can help you here. You see, you're not actually very smart.
 
2013-03-06 12:58:01 PM  

MattStafford: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Borrowing to educate kids GOOD
Borrowing to keep poor people from living in squalor or dying from preventable illness BAD

Correct.  We should keep poor people from living in squalor or dying via tax revenue.  If we keep them from living in squalor/dying via borrowing, we're going to have a heckuva time when we can no longer borrow.


So you support replacing the sequester with tax increases.
 
2013-03-06 12:58:03 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: MattStafford: Um, everyone who supports Medicare/Social Security support borrowing money and distributing it to the population.

MattStafford: Only borrow money to invest in productive programs! Education,

Ah, I see.

Borrowing to educate kids GOOD
Borrowing to keep poor people from living in squalor or dying from preventable illness BAD


You see, if you get poor people out of poverty then they might be able to give their kids a good education without special government education programs. That would mean ending GOOD programs, so it would be BAD.
 
2013-03-06 12:58:08 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Not only do we not agree with you, thankfully the economists who actually matter do not agree with you and in fact would laugh at you if you said something like this to them.


Yes, they would most likely laugh and then completely refuse to address the points I was making, a la the Krugman/Murphy debate.
 
2013-03-06 12:58:41 PM  

Cletus C.: CaptainToast: The scary is for how stupid the tag is.

It's kind of scary that the preferred option is to make the cuts as painful as possible.


It's like you don't understand what the sequester was for in the first place.

Hint: that's the entire point of it. To make the cuts so painful that the GOP is forced to be reasonable.
 
2013-03-06 12:58:46 PM  

Lord_Baull: I may be way off here, but it looks like he's making fun of clane.


somedude210:
I think you're way off
this is how you mock cline
because reality doesn't make sense
make your own reality
 
2013-03-06 12:58:55 PM  

PsiChick: You're complaining about something that is working exactly the way it's supposed to.


Which is why republicans are complaining. They can't show the masses how evil, inefficient and useless the government is if it's working.
 
2013-03-06 12:58:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So you support replacing the sequester with tax increases.


I'm in favor of balancing the budget through whatever means necessary.  Both tax increases and spending cuts will have to be involved.
 
2013-03-06 12:59:26 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Not only do we not agree with you, thankfully the economists who actually matter do not agree with you and in fact would laugh at you if you said something like this to them.

Yes, they would most likely laugh and then completely refuse to address the points I was making, a la the Krugman/Murphy debate.


Because the points you are making are so blatantly false as to be laughable. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 does not equal 5 to a two year old. You're better off giving them some blocks to play with.
 
2013-03-06 12:59:49 PM  

Poopspasm: I think I can help you here. You see, you're not actually very smart.


And those who think we can borrow our way to prosperity are.  We're through the looking glass on this one.
 
2013-03-06 01:00:09 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: So you support replacing the sequester with tax increases.

I'm in favor of balancing the budget through whatever means necessary.  Both tax increases and spending cuts will have to be involved.


So you're in favor of the Keynsian approach then? Interesting.
 
2013-03-06 01:00:40 PM  

Zasteva: You see, if you get poor people out of poverty then they might be able to give their kids a good education without special government education programs. That would mean ending GOOD programs, so it would be BAD.


I'm entirely for funding preschool education and all kinds of education through borrowing.  That isn't the same as funding welfare through borrowing.
 
2013-03-06 01:00:45 PM  

MattStafford: Poopspasm: I think I can help you here. You see, you're not actually very smart.

And those who think we can borrow our way to prosperity are.  We're through the looking glass on this one.


You're the one advocating that we stop borrowing money at negative interest.
 
2013-03-06 01:01:37 PM  

Zasteva: clane: If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...
...
Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth.  THE TRUTH

[img.math-fail.com image 750x600]


The truth is that, to Fox, math is hard and women talk too much.
 
2013-03-06 01:01:45 PM  

MattStafford: Zasteva: You see, if you get poor people out of poverty then they might be able to give their kids a good education without special government education programs. That would mean ending GOOD programs, so it would be BAD.

I'm entirely for funding preschool education and all kinds of education through borrowing.  That isn't the same as funding welfare through borrowing.


Even though evidence shows that welfare programs are better for the economy than nothing?
 
2013-03-06 01:02:04 PM  

MattStafford: I honestly don't understand how so many people can be so willfully ignorant of an obvious truth.  If you borrow money, you better use it for something good, or it is going to suck when you have to pay it back.  The fact that you might be a sovereign country has no bearing on that universal, immutable truth.


Actually, paying back money sucks whether or not it's used for something good.
 
2013-03-06 01:02:14 PM  

MattStafford: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Borrowing to educate kids GOOD
Borrowing to keep poor people from living in squalor or dying from preventable illness BAD

Correct.  We should keep poor people from living in squalor or dying via tax revenue.  If we keep them from living in squalor/dying via borrowing, we're going to have a heckuva time when we can no longer borrow.


This is a reasonable position. I would argue that we are not funding any of our anti-poverty programs by borrowing. All our anti-poverty programs are covered by taxes, then we borrow money for the portions of the budget that I don't like.

Seriously, how do you decide whether a particular program is funded by borrowing or not?
 
2013-03-06 01:02:56 PM  

somedude210: Lord_Baull: I may be way off here, but it looks like he's making fun of clane.

somedude210:
I think you're way off
this is how you mock cline
because reality doesn't make sense
make your own reality



I don't get it. Forever?
 
2013-03-06 01:03:02 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Because the points you are making are so blatantly false as to be laughable. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 does not equal 5 to a two year old. You're better off giving them some blocks to play with.


Sure, good answer.

The idea that if you borrow money you should only spend it on worthwhile investments is blatantly false.  The idea that if you borrow money you can spend it on literally anything and have no repercussions (except a stronger economy) is a universal truth that we are all born with.

That is essentially what you are saying to me.
 
2013-03-06 01:03:41 PM  

MattStafford: BeesNuts: Before I even get into "Growth" please:

Define Value.

Define value?  In what context?


In the context of macroeconomic growth.  Big V.  Value.

Some people define the value of a good by the amount of money other people are willing to pay for it.  Other people define the value of a good by the amount of labor it commands.  This is important to the remainder of this discussion.
 
2013-03-06 01:05:16 PM  

verbaltoxin: So why hasn't 0bama shown any leadership and forced the Senate to adopt any of the House's budget bills? Because he'd rather play politics and golf then help the American people.

You're doing well so far. Keeping the responses short and shrift. Just don't f*ck it up by pretending you're a dentist or economist.


And don't mention rape! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away it.

/dammit, I said rape!
/ twice
 
2013-03-06 01:05:54 PM  
If you spend money investing in people, developing them into more well-educated citizens who can command better salaries and develop into more awesome constituents, that's a pretty good return on your investment, borrowed money or not.
 
2013-03-06 01:05:59 PM  

Zasteva: This is a reasonable position. I would argue that we are not funding any of our anti-poverty programs by borrowing. All our anti-poverty programs are covered by taxes, then we borrow money for the portions of the budget that I don't like.

Seriously, how do you decide whether a particular program is funded by borrowing or not?


We fund X% of our government spending via borrowing.  So I say X% of all programs are financed by borrowing.  If you have a better way, I'm all ears.
 
2013-03-06 01:06:07 PM  

Lord_Baull: PsiChick: You're complaining about something that is working exactly the way it's supposed to.

Which is why republicans are complaining. They can't show the masses how evil, inefficient and useless the government is if it's working.


tbh, they're complaining because they're getting spanked for not doing their homework. At some stage you can't actually stop any consequences ever by screaming "BIAS! BIAS!" at anyone who questions you.
 
2013-03-06 01:06:24 PM  

MattStafford: I honestly don't understand how so many people can be so willfully ignorant of an obvious truth.  If you borrow money, you better use it for something good, or it is going to suck when you have to pay it back.  The fact that you might be a sovereign country has no bearing on that universal, immutable truth.


God help me, Matt and I do agree on a basic principle.  This basic principle does not inherently lead me to agree with your proposals about how to fix today's problems, but I will stand up and say that yes, I agree with this statement.
 
2013-03-06 01:07:02 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because the points you are making are so blatantly false as to be laughable. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 does not equal 5 to a two year old. You're better off giving them some blocks to play with.

Sure, good answer.

The idea that if you borrow money you should only spend it on worthwhile investments is blatantly false.  The idea that if you borrow money you can spend it on literally anything and have no repercussions (except a stronger economy) is a universal truth that we are all born with.

That is essentially what you are saying to me.


We'll see if we can't get you closer to the truth of what we're saying to you in this thread.  After you answer the question about Value.  That answer will determine how I go about explaining what you're missing.
 
2013-03-06 01:08:03 PM  

PsiChick: Lord_Baull: PsiChick: You're complaining about something that is working exactly the way it's supposed to.

Which is why republicans are complaining. They can't show the masses how evil, inefficient and useless the government is if it's working.

tbh, they're complaining because they're getting spanked for not doing their homework. At some stage you can't actually stop any consequences ever by screaming "BIAS! BIAS!" at anyone who questions you.



Works well for conservatives complaining when the media quotes them.
 
2013-03-06 01:08:28 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because the points you are making are so blatantly false as to be laughable. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 does not equal 5 to a two year old. You're better off giving them some blocks to play with.

Sure, good answer.

The idea that if you borrow money you should only spend it on worthwhile investments is blatantly false.  The idea that if you borrow money you can spend it on literally anything and have no repercussions (except a stronger economy) is a universal truth that we are all born with.

That is essentially what you are saying to me.


Actually, I'm confounded by the idea that you can determine which money from the general fund is borrowed verses which money comes from taxes. If you can't (or don't) do that, then you can't determine how much borrowed money is spent on any particular program.
 
2013-03-06 01:10:09 PM  

Grungehamster: You're saying the president is terrible for obeying the law.


Is that not also what Mr. Bob Woodward claimed?
 
2013-03-06 01:10:13 PM  

Zasteva: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Because the points you are making are so blatantly false as to be laughable. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 does not equal 5 to a two year old. You're better off giving them some blocks to play with.

Sure, good answer.

The idea that if you borrow money you should only spend it on worthwhile investments is blatantly false.  The idea that if you borrow money you can spend it on literally anything and have no repercussions (except a stronger economy) is a universal truth that we are all born with.

That is essentially what you are saying to me.

Actually, I'm confounded by the idea that you can determine which money from the general fund is borrowed verses which money comes from taxes. If you can't (or don't) do that, then you can't determine how much borrowed money is spent on any particular program.


Wait til he finds out how we finance the general fund!
 
2013-03-06 01:14:03 PM  

MattStafford: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Borrowing to educate kids GOOD
Borrowing to keep poor people from living in squalor or dying from preventable illness BAD

Correct.  We should keep poor people from living in squalor or dyingeducating kids via tax revenue.  If we keep them from living in squalor/dying educating kids via borrowing, we're going to have a heckuva time when we can no longer borrow.


You contradict yourself
 
2013-03-06 01:14:23 PM  
MattStafford:

I might think it is a good idea for me to live like a king.  If I requisition the government for 100 million dollars, and know a senator or two, and they give me that 100 million dollars - financed via borrowing of course - are you saying that it was a smart economic decision?

Oh good christ, here we go.  That's even worse than the coconut parable.
 
2013-03-06 01:14:36 PM  

BeesNuts: In the context of macroeconomic growth. Big V. Value.

Some people define the value of a good by the amount of money other people are willing to pay for it. Other people define the value of a good by the amount of labor it commands. This is important to the remainder of this discussion.


The value of a good or service is dependent on the rate a free market would set for that good or service.  Easy to conceptualize wrt a cheeseburger or Xbox, but a bit tougher for something like the Interstate System or a police force.
 
2013-03-06 01:16:56 PM  

MattStafford: The value of a good or service is dependent on the rate a free market would set for that good or service.


For too long we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community value in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product now is over 800 billion dollars a year, but that gross national product, if we judge the United States of America by that, that gross national product counts air pollution, and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic squall. It counts Napalm, and it counts nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our city. It counts Whitman's rifles and Speck's Knifes and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet, the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play; it does not include the beauty of our poetry of the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate for the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country it measures everything in short except that which makes life worth while. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans. Robert F. Kennedy 1968
 
2013-03-06 01:17:52 PM  

Lord_Baull: PsiChick: Lord_Baull: PsiChick: You're complaining about something that is working exactly the way it's supposed to.

Which is why republicans are complaining. They can't show the masses how evil, inefficient and useless the government is if it's working.

tbh, they're complaining because they're getting spanked for not doing their homework. At some stage you can't actually stop any consequences ever by screaming "BIAS! BIAS!" at anyone who questions you.


Works well for conservatives complaining when the media quotes them.


Which is part of why I'm not too sympathetic to conservatives right about now. With my eight-year-old sister, I tend to let her do what she wants (that isn't life-threatening) and just tell her beforehand what will happen--yes, you can play with glitter, but you have to clean it up. Consequences are part of every action, good or bad. Republicans have been artificially freed from the consequences of their actions socially--shame, group dislike--but now they really can't be freed from it, and they're having to face reality. Sucks to have to learn this in adulthood, but that's life.
 
2013-03-06 01:18:10 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Shut the fark up, Fox, nobody cares.


Go home, fox. You're stupid.
 
2013-03-06 01:19:52 PM  

MattStafford: Zasteva: This is a reasonable position. I would argue that we are not funding any of our anti-poverty programs by borrowing. All our anti-poverty programs are covered by taxes, then we borrow money for the portions of the budget that I don't like.

Seriously, how do you decide whether a particular program is funded by borrowing or not?

We fund X% of our government spending via borrowing.  So I say X% of all programs are financed by borrowing.  If you have a better way, I'm all ears.


Okay, so if S is total gov spending, and G is spending on programs that are Good and worth borrowing for, then isn't it fair to say that we need to cut total spending by (S - G) * X? Let's call that C for cuts, ok?

Now our new spending (S1) = (S - C).

Sounds good, we've made the needed cuts, right?

Opps, we are still spending X1% of S1 via borrowing, So: X1% of all programs are financed by borrowing. We have to do the cuts again. And again. And again...

The only way to satisfy you, mathematically speaking, is to have no borrowing at all, or to have only programs that you personally agree with. Wouldn't it be better just to state that up front?

/hope you weren't told there would be no math
 
2013-03-06 01:20:54 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Correct. We should keep poor people from living in squalor or dyingeducating kids via tax revenue. If we keep them from living in squalor/dying educating kids via borrowing, we're going to have a heckuva time when we can no longer borrow.

You contradict yourself


The difference being, that the educated kids (presumably) will make our economy strong enough that even after paying off the debt, we are better off for that spending.  The same cannot be said about welfare.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent.  Even after paying down the debt, we're 100 dollars worth of goods stronger.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and give it to a person, he will still produce the same amount of goods in the future.  After paying down the debt, we will be in a similar position to where we started, but facing some annoying to severe side effects (depending on how much we spent).
 
2013-03-06 01:22:09 PM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: JerseyTim: I feel like we're spending about 99.9% of the time arguing about why there is a sequester and who is responsible and .1% of the time trying to do something about it.

Welcome to the fark politics tab.  This is where you're supposed to pick a team (as long it's the Democrats) and beat dead horses while turning a blind eye to what's actually happening.  If you hang in this tab long enough you will learn;

A:  D=Good
B:  R=Bad
C:  Everything is still Bush's fault
D:  You will be assimilated
E:  You will be ostracized if you don't conform to A, B & C not wishing to become D.


So vote Republican?
 
2013-03-06 01:22:17 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: The value of a good or service is dependent on the rate a free market would set for that good or service.

For too long we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community value in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product now is over 800 billion dollars a year, but that gross national product, if we judge the United States of America by that, that gross national product counts air pollution, and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic squall. It counts Napalm, and it counts nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our city. It counts Whitman's rifles and Speck's Knifes and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet, the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play; it does not include the beauty of our poetry of the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate for the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country it measures everything in short except that which makes life worth while. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans. Robert F. Kennedy 1968


That's gross!

/ hadn't seen that Kennedy speech before
// it's excellent
 
2013-03-06 01:22:27 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: For too long

...

Can you post that in bold AND all caps? I didn't bring my glasses today.

TIA!
 
2013-03-06 01:23:41 PM  

MattStafford: If you borrow one hundred dollars and give it to a person, he will still produce the same amount of goods in the future.


This just in: homeless, hungry, sick people are as productive as people without those issues.
 
2013-03-06 01:25:22 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Cletus C.: CaptainToast: The scary is for how stupid the tag is.

It's kind of scary that the preferred option is to make the cuts as painful as possible.

It's like you don't understand what the sequester was for in the first place.

Hint: that's the entire point of it. To make the cuts so painful that the GOP is forced to be reasonable.


Let me state this as simply as possible. Yes, I understand sequestration was a sort of nuclear option. Yes, I get it.

This thingy here? Well, it's a department saying maybe we can get by with conventional missile attacks, you know, so maybe save some lives. Then, someone saying, no, the nuclear option is what  we promised and what we must deliver. Make it hurt.

To you that makes sense, I guess.

Hint. WTF dude?
 
2013-03-06 01:26:10 PM  

PsiChick: Lord_Baull: PsiChick: You're complaining about something that is working exactly the way it's supposed to.

Which is why republicans are complaining. They can't show the masses how evil, inefficient and useless the government is if it's working.

tbh, they're complaining because they're getting spanked for not doing their homework. At some stage you can't actually stop any consequences ever by screaming "BIAS! BIAS!" at anyone who questions you.


They also bet this whole sequester thing on having Mitt Romney in the White House this year. They didn't believe Obama would get reelected, nor would they have to deal with the sequester fully implemented. They assumed the economy would stumble and stall long enough for the GOP to win the election, and afterward they'd change up the sequester with a Republican in the White House. They believed the American people would put full blame for the Budget Control Act of 2011 onto Obama and Democrats.

Whoops.
 
2013-03-06 01:27:05 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: For too long we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community value in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product now is over 800 billion dollars a year, but that gross national product, if we judge the United States of America by that, that gross national product counts air pollution, and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic squall. It counts Napalm, and it counts nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our city. It counts Whitman's rifles and Speck's Knifes and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet, the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play; it does not include the beauty of our poetry of the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate for the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country it measures everything in short except that which makes life worth while. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans. Robert F. Kennedy 1968


You can borrow all the money you want to fund our nation's "beauty of our poetry", but I guarantee those poets won't be the one's paying the debt when it comes due.

I have no problem with the government funding any of those things.  I have no problem with government funded arts programs, etc.  I just have a problem with funding those programs via debt.  I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand that paying for art grants with borrowed money isn't a good idea.

I'm also in favor of strong EPA regulations.
 
2013-03-06 01:28:15 PM  

Zasteva: The only way to satisfy you, mathematically speaking, is to have no borrowing at all, or to have only programs that you personally agree with. Wouldn't it be better just to state that up front?

/hope you weren't told there would be no math


Yeah - that is exactly what I've stated up front.  We should only borrow money on productive programs.  Programs that are worthwhile, and make our country stronger - even after we have to pay off the debt.
 
2013-03-06 01:29:03 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: MattStafford: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Simple. Imagine two guys on a deserted island. one has a fish, and the other has a coconut. As they are sitting there contemplating the relative strengths of their respective economic positions, a government contractor arrives to build a bridge to another nearby, uninhabited island. "Value" is how much gold bullion each can expect to receive from that contractor for their individual goods

Do you guys honestly not agree with me?  That if you borrow money, spending it on consumption is not a good idea?  Borrow hundreds of millions of dollars, give it to the population, and pray for economic success?  Christ.

Other than George Bush, who did exactly that, who the hell advocates this position? I've certainly never said we should "Borrow hundreds of millions of dollars [and] give it to the population" So  it seems like your entire "point" is an argument against a position nobody holds.

Well done. YOU WIN!


www.betterlivingthroughbeowulf.com
 
2013-03-06 01:29:31 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: For too long we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community value in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product now is over 800 billion dollars a year, but that gross national product, if we judge the United States of America by that, that gross national product counts air pollution, and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic squall. It counts Napalm, and it counts nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our city. It counts Whitman's rifles and Speck's Knifes and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet, the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play; it does not include the beauty of our poetry of the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate for the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country it measures everything in short except that which makes life worth while. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans. Robert F. Kennedy 1968

You can borrow all the money you want to fund our nation's "beauty of our poetry", but I guarantee those poets won't be the one's paying the debt when it comes due.

I have no problem with the government funding any of those things.  I have no problem with government funded arts programs, etc.  I just have a problem with funding those programs via debt.  I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand that paying for art grants with borrowed money isn't a good idea.

I'm also in favor of strong EPA regulations.


It was a commentary on your stunted definition of "value".
 
2013-03-06 01:30:36 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: If you borrow one hundred dollars and give it to a person, he will still produce the same amount of goods in the future.

This just in: homeless, hungry, sick people are as productive as people without those issues.


Are they producing enough goods to pay off the debt the country accrued by keeping them in that state?  If not, then it isn't a good investment.

I'm in favor of wealth redistribution.  We're a rich country, and we should be able to take care of our own.  But trying to do that via borrowing is a completely dumbshiat move.
 
2013-03-06 01:32:30 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: It was a commentary on your stunted definition of "value".


There is a moral value to things and a financial value to things.  I am using the financial distinction.  To be fair, I wasn't entirely clear with that, and perhaps deserve some blame.

We should fund financially valuable programs via borrowing, and morally valuable programs via taxes.
 
2013-03-06 01:33:35 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: MattStafford: If you borrow one hundred dollars and give it to a person, he will still produce the same amount of goods in the future.

This just in: homeless, hungry, sick people are as productive as people without those issues.

Are they producing enough goods to pay off the debt the country accrued by keeping them in that state?  If not, then it isn't a good investment.

I'm in favor of wealth redistribution.  We're a rich country, and we should be able to take care of our own.  But trying to do that via borrowing is a completely dumbshiat move.


Do you produce enough goods to pay off the debt the country has accrues in keeping you in your current state?
 
2013-03-06 01:34:25 PM  

MattStafford: The difference being, that the educated kids (presumably) will make our economy strong enough that even after paying off the debt, we are better off for that spending. The same cannot be said about welfare.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent. Even after paying down the debt, we're 100 dollars worth of goods stronger.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and give it to a person, he will still produce the same amount of goods in the future. After paying down the debt, we will be in a similar position to where we started, but facing some annoying to severe side effects (depending on how much we spent).


Just to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here, you're assuming there are no spillover effects from a person's choice of consumption.  That's a fairly heroic assumption you are making.  If you consider the possibility of spillovers, it no longer becomes a black and white issue for the effects of consumption on future growth.

I will admit that the link between consumption and growth is not well understood from the research side, but there have been some recent efforts to study that link, (Gualerzi 2012 and Trezzini 2011).  Quite a bit more work needs to be done, but consumption is a notoriously difficult topic to not only research, but also to publish in.  Dismissing consumption outright however is probably not the best way to argue your point, since there could be significant positive effects on growth via consumption when considering spillovers (and externalities).
 
2013-03-06 01:36:48 PM  
I love the fark politics tab.  Especially the "total farkers"  It's the only place on the Internet where one can see people writhing in pain over their financial failure in life while spending $5/month to complain about not having any money.  Hey?  Maybe if you learned a TRADE rather then going to some community college (probably online while eating Cheetos in yer mommy's basement) to earn a worthless "degree", you coulda made something of yourselves?  Ever think of that?  Or are y'all too good to get yer hands dirty?  "But-but-but, I have a degree!"  Guess what, stupid?  So do the other 150 people who applied for this job.  What I need to know is do you have any SKILLS?  No?  Bye.
 
2013-03-06 01:36:54 PM  

MattStafford: Ctrl-Alt-Del: Correct. We should keep poor people from living in squalor or dyingeducating kids via tax revenue. If we keep them from living in squalor/dying educating kids via borrowing, we're going to have a heckuva time when we can no longer borrow.

You contradict yourself

The difference being, that the educated kids (presumably) will make our economy strong enough that even after paying off the debt, we are better off for that spending.  The same cannot be said about welfare.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent.  Even after paying down the debt, we're 100 dollars worth of goods stronger.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and give it to a person, he will still produce the same amount of goods in the future.  After paying down the debt, we will be in a similar position to where we started, but facing some annoying to severe side effects (depending on how much we spent).


Yes, but if you have rampant poor, you wind up with rampant crime. No matter how many cops you throw at the problem, someone gets killed and then you wind up with negative productivity.

If you don't invest in programs to get people off the streets or in better living conditions you have a long term negative effect on the rest of the population.
 
2013-03-06 01:37:19 PM  

MattStafford: MattStafford: If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent.


If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to heal a sick person who is producing nothing, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to provide preventive healthcare to a person, and in the future he avoids needing 200,000 dollars of emergency procedures as a result of that preventive care, that money was well spent.

MattStafford: If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent. Even after paying down the debt, we're 100 dollars worth of goods stronger.


If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, but the kid doesn't pay attention because he's farking HUNGRY and malnourished, and his extremely limited prospects in the world due to lack of education lead him to a life of crime and imprisonment costing tens of thousands of dollars per year, that's borrowed money that was just wasted.

Borrowing money to provide needed food or healthcare is neither wiser nor more frivolous than borrowing it to pay for needed education.
 
2013-03-06 01:38:27 PM  

MattStafford: Some people define the value of a good by the amount of money other people are willing to pay for it. Other people define the value of a good by the amount of labor it commands. This is important to the remainder of this discussion.

The value of a good or service is dependent on the rate a free market would set for that good or service.  Easy to conceptualize wrt a cheeseburger or Xbox, but a bit tougher for something like the Interstate System or a police force.


It sounds like your answer to his question is "amount of money".

I think your answer is fine, but if you rely on the free market to set value then you run into two problems.

1) A true free market requires an absence of both externalized costs and coercion. It also requires that the costs and benefits are known. There are a great many things for which that is not true, especially when you start talking about social programs. Depending on the people involved, it might not even be true for a cheeseburger or an Xbox.

2) Value is different for each person. If it weren't, transactions would never happen. In a free market transaction the trade happens because the Value of the item received is greater than the Value of the item given up, for both parties to the transaction. That can only happen if the Value of at least one of the items is different for both people. So by definition, money can't accurately represent value, it can only approximate it.
 
2013-03-06 01:38:52 PM  

MattStafford: BeesNuts: In the context of macroeconomic growth. Big V. Value.

Some people define the value of a good by the amount of money other people are willing to pay for it. Other people define the value of a good by the amount of labor it commands. This is important to the remainder of this discussion.

The value of a good or service is dependent on the rate a free market would set for that good or service.  Easy to conceptualize wrt a cheeseburger or Xbox, but a bit tougher for something like the Interstate System or a police force.


OK then.  I disagree.  I subscribe to the notion that value is determined specifically and only by the amount of labor it commands.  Removing money and market rates from the equation.  As an example, a crap ton of silver was discovered in the turn of the 18th century as a result of exploration in the America's.  Most of this silver found its way back to Europe.  Most of Europe's currency was based on silver.  As the real amount of silver increased, their currencies deflated relative to the amount of labor they commanded, but not in relation to the market value of silver.  Put another way, the amount of labor commanded by a unit of that currency increased while no apparent change in the relationship of the value of the currency and the value of the commodity whence the currency was derived occurred anywhere in Europe.  The VALUE of silver would appear to have decreased, in your definition, whereas in mine, the VALUE of silver increased, as the same quantity of silver, represented by a certain quantity of currency, would command a larger amount of labor in the market.

Beef didn't get cheaper.  Nor did the labor that produced it.  The value of the currency that purchased it however, did.

Police, to use your example, are unproductive labor, in this construction.  They provide no value as their economic activity neither increases the value of capital stock by cultivating land or accounts, nor the value of raw goods by turning them into manufactured goods, nor the value of manufactures by transporting them to areas of increased demand.

However, an Interstate System, and the labor that produces it provides direct value to goods by facilitating their transportation to areas of increased demand, the latter method production mentioned above.  As a result, it becomes a much more straightforward discussion than the one you are apparently trying to have.  I think this is why you stray and are confused.  You are working with a faulty definition.

If any of this sounds familiar, it is because I'm not the one who came up with it.  Adam "The Father of Capitalism" Smith did.

If *none* of this sounds familiary, I strongly recommend you read Wealth of Nations cover to cover.  Wait 6 months.  Then read Wealth of Nations cover to cover *again*.
 
2013-03-06 01:39:36 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Do you produce enough goods to pay off the debt the country has accrues in keeping you in your current state?


I'm not sure why that is relevant.

If the government's investment in the poor lifts that class out of poverty, and they start producing enough goods to pay off that debt, then it was a good use of debt financed government spending.  If those people are unable to produce enough goods to pay off that debt, then it was a poor use of debt financed government spending.

Based on tax rates, I'm leaning towards poor use.
 
2013-03-06 01:41:25 PM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: I love the fark politics tab.  Especially the "total farkers"  It's the only place on the Internet where one can see people writhing in pain over their financial failure in life while spending $5/month to complain about not having any money.  Hey?  Maybe if you learned a TRADE rather then going to some community college (probably online while eating Cheetos in yer mommy's basement) to earn a worthless "degree", you coulda made something of yourselves?  Ever think of that?  Or are y'all too good to get yer hands dirty?  "But-but-but, I have a degree!"  Guess what, stupid?  So do the other 150 people who applied for this job.  What I need to know is do you have any SKILLS?  No?  Bye.


You sure described absolutely no one in this thread. What are you talking about? Feel better?
 
2013-03-06 01:41:39 PM  

KhanAidan: Just to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here, you're assuming there are no spillover effects from a person's choice of consumption. That's a fairly heroic assumption you are making. If you consider the possibility of spillovers, it no longer becomes a black and white issue for the effects of consumption on future growth.


You are correct.  It is possible that if the government borrows money and gives it to JoeBlow, and JoeBlow buys an Xbox, Microsoft might use that 100 to invest in new technology, and revolutionize our life.  But if you are trying to get me to subscribe to an economic theory, and that assumption is pivotal to the success of your policies, I'm going to keep looking.
 
2013-03-06 01:42:12 PM  

MattStafford: Yeah - that is exactly what I've stated up front. We should only borrow money on productive programs


And in your world, feeding people who can't afford food and providing preventive medicine to people who can't afford healthcare aren't "productive programs"

'Bagger, please
 
2013-03-06 01:44:00 PM  

MattStafford: Zasteva: The only way to satisfy you, mathematically speaking, is to have no borrowing at all, or to have only programs that you personally agree with. Wouldn't it be better just to state that up front?

/hope you weren't told there would be no math

Yeah - that is exactly what I've stated up front.  We should only borrow money on productive programs.  Programs that are worthwhile, and make our country stronger - even after we have to pay off the debt.


You are missing my point. Your statement and mine are different. Your statement implies that there is a way to borrow money for productive programs.

Yet if you assign borrowing amongst all programs, across the board, then you cannot borrow money for productive programs, because you will also be borrowing for unproductive programs.

In short, you are saying we shouldn't borrow money, and putting the "expect on productive programs" is just a feel good words that hides what you are really saying, probably even from yourself.
 
2013-03-06 01:44:33 PM  

BeesNuts: Beef didn't get cheaper. Nor did the labor that produced it. The value of the  currency that purchased it however, did.


hurrrr.  Despite my best efforts to be as precise in language as Mr. Smith, I farked up.

The currency hasn't become cheaper in value, but cheaper in real dollars.  This contrasts with the situation before the creation of fiat currency in which silver fled from nations with faltering economies to nations with flourishing economies, draining real wealth from already troubled sovereignties and causing an inflationary effect in which whatever currency they were using became worth less and less in terms of real Labor Value with no apparent change in the Money Value of the silver that was leaving faster than Pauly D at a party with no booze, chicks or music.
 
2013-03-06 01:44:41 PM  

MattStafford: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you produce enough goods to pay off the debt the country has accrues in keeping you in your current state?

I'm not sure why that is relevant.

If the government's investment in the poor lifts that class out of poverty, and they start producing enough goods to pay off that debt, then it was a good use of debt financed government spending.  If those people are unable to produce enough goods to pay off that debt, then it was a poor use of debt financed government spending.

Based on tax rates, I'm leaning towards poor use.


How do tax rates indicate anything, positive or negative on the productivity of those who have benefited from the social safety net?
 
2013-03-06 01:44:57 PM  
I'm beginning to think a certain farker is here for the sole purpose of igniting a wayward discussion so as to divert attention from legitimate debate on sequestration. Threadjacking, as it were.

But now I sound like the crazies here who label anyone who does not agree with their groupthink as a "troll."

Boy, I'm concerned. And tired.
 
2013-03-06 01:50:02 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to heal a sick person who is producing nothing, and in the future he produces 200 dollars more worth of goods than he otherwise did, that money was well spent.

If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to provide preventive healthcare to a person, and in the future he avoids needing 200,000 dollars of emergency procedures as a result of that preventive care, that money was well spent.


Borrowing to provide health care for the young and productive I would be for.  I would prefer a different system, but that spend is justifiable in my mind.  Borrowing to provide health care for the retired and no longer productive is not justifiable in my mind, even in the latter case you have provided.  In the example, it certainly seems like a good decision, but the general policy is not.  The idea of borrowing now because it prevents greater future borrowing is still not good borrowing.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: If you borrow one hundred dollars and use it to educate a kid, but the kid doesn't pay attention because he's farking HUNGRY and malnourished, and his extremely limited prospects in the world due to lack of education lead him to a life of crime and imprisonment costing tens of thousands of dollars per year, that's borrowed money that was just wasted.

Borrowing money to provide needed food or healthcare is neither wiser nor more frivolous than borrowing it to pay for needed education.


I have no problem borrowing to invest in our youth, even if it includes health care or nourishment.  By borrowing money and feeding that kid, you are allowing him to get an education and produce more in the future.

Again, if you can make the argument that our country would be better off after the spending is done and the debt is paid off, I will most likely agree with it.
 
2013-03-06 01:50:03 PM  

MattStafford: KhanAidan: Just to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here, you're assuming there are no spillover effects from a person's choice of consumption. That's a fairly heroic assumption you are making. If you consider the possibility of spillovers, it no longer becomes a black and white issue for the effects of consumption on future growth.

You are correct.  It is possible that if the government borrows money and gives it to JoeBlow, and JoeBlow buys an Xbox, Microsoft might use that 100 to invest in new technology, and revolutionize our life.  But if you are trying to get me to subscribe to an economic theory, and that assumption is pivotal to the success of your policies, I'm going to keep looking.


Wait...are you suggesting that consumer choice has no impact on firm budgeting decisions?  Because once again, that's a far more heroic assumption to make than my point that there is at least some form of spillover/externality effect tied to consumption.  I think it'd be far more prudent to go with the least restrictive assumptions when considering policy analysis.
 
2013-03-06 01:51:15 PM  
I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize for making what I had assumed would be a straightforward way to understand the framework of the debate into a right proper shiatshow.
 
2013-03-06 01:51:20 PM  

Cletus C.: Let me state this as simply as possible. Yes, I understand sequestration was a sort of nuclear option. Yes, I get it.


Right, it was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) intended to prevent War. Glad we are in agreement.

This thingy here? Well, it's a department saying maybe we can get by with conventional missile attacks, you know, so maybe save some lives. Then, someone saying, no, the nuclear option is what  we promised and what we must deliver. Make it hurt.the President saying, no, you farkers need to stop the war altogether, and not launch the nukes. And then the GOP saying, well, we are going to have war, so we are launching the nukes. We'll let you decide where they are targeted. And then the President saying, no, Fark You. I don't want to do your dirty work, don't launch anything! And I'm not going to collaborate in their launch or targeting.

Hint. WTF dude?

Yeah, fixed that example for you.
 
2013-03-06 01:51:36 PM  

MattStafford: You can borrow all the money you want to fund our nation's "beauty of our poetry", but I guarantee those poets won't be the one's paying the debt when it comes due.


Not exactly a poet but Samuel L. Jackson's movies made $1.7B in domestic revenue in his career.  I will put his job creation and tax record ahead of Romney's any day.
 
2013-03-06 01:53:14 PM  

Cletus C.: I'm beginning to think a certain farker is here for the sole purpose of igniting a wayward discussion so as to divert attention from legitimate debate on sequestration. Threadjacking, as it were.

But now I sound like the crazies here who label anyone who does not agree with their groupthink as a "troll."


They're trolling you say?
 
2013-03-06 01:54:09 PM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: I love the fark politics tab.  Especially the "total farkers"  It's the only place on the Internet where one can see people writhing in pain over their financial failure in life while spending $5/month to complain about not having any money.  Hey?  Maybe if you learned a TRADE rather then going to some community college (probably online while eating Cheetos in yer mommy's basement) to earn a worthless "degree", you coulda made something of yourselves?  Ever think of that?  Or are y'all too good to get yer hands dirty?  "But-but-but, I have a degree!"  Guess what, stupid?  So do the other 150 people who applied for this job.  What I need to know is do you have any SKILLS?  No?  Bye.


wut?

I think maybe a walk outside would do you some good, kid.
 
2013-03-06 01:55:18 PM  

BeesNuts: I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize for making what I had assumed would be a straightforward way to understand the framework of the debate into a right proper shiatshow.


there's nothing anyone can do right now.  the GOP isn't interested in explanations or being reasonable.  hell, Limbaugh has been having a meltdown all week.  so has most of the GOP spin machine.
 
2013-03-06 01:56:41 PM  

Cletus C.: I'm beginning to think a certain farker is here for the sole purpose of igniting a wayward discussion so as to divert attention from legitimate debate on sequestration. Threadjacking, as it were.

But now I sound like the crazies here who label anyone who does not agree with their groupthink as a "troll."

Boy, I'm concerned. And tired.


No, we all know who you are talking about. The person has been trolling fark for some time now.  Unless Palin has a fark handle no one is that cartoonishly partisan for the GOP. I disagree with you quite a bit, but at least I know you are genuine.
 
2013-03-06 01:58:30 PM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: I love the fark politics tab.  Especially the "total farkers"  It's the only place on the Internet where one can see people writhing in pain over their financial failure in life while spending $5/month to complain about not having any money.  Hey?  Maybe if you learned a TRADE rather then going to some community college (probably online while eating Cheetos in yer mommy's basement) to earn a worthless "degree", you coulda made something of yourselves?  Ever think of that?  Or are y'all too good to get yer hands dirty?  "But-but-but, I have a degree!"  Guess what, stupid?  So do the other 150 people who applied for this job.  What I need to know is do you have any SKILLS?  No?  Bye.


Sorry you got turned down for a job.

/It will get better for you
//Especially if you get some skills
 
2013-03-06 02:00:12 PM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: I love the fark politics tab.  Especially the "total farkers"  It's the only place on the Internet where one can see people writhing in pain over their financial failure in life while spending $5/month to complain about not having any money.  Hey?  Maybe if you learned a TRADE rather then going to some community college (probably online while eating Cheetos in yer mommy's basement) to earn a worthless "degree", you coulda made something of yourselves?  Ever think of that?  Or are y'all too good to get yer hands dirty?  "But-but-but, I have a degree!"  Guess what, stupid?  So do the other 150 people who applied for this job.  What I need to know is do you have any SKILLS?  No?  Bye.


You have a problem with engineers? Really? Is that not good enough of a degree for you? You have any idea what skills and abilities go into engineering? You understand why engineers despise people like you? because you have no ability to reason, to problem solve, to figure out what problems people like you cause and why people like you are always the last to figure it out. We don't need worthless people like you, you know why? Because people like you got us into this mess, they're the ones that refused to give us a livable wage so that we had to get degrees to prove our "worth" so we can make enough to survive in this world you've created. I have a degree and I get my hands dirty. I work with men and women who's purpose is protecting people, whether it's hiding them in plain sight or keeping them from getting severely injured when pieces of lead fly into them, they are the people that do good and they are the people who have purpose in life. Unlike you, you bloodsucking leech. What the fark have you done in this miserable existence of your hellish life? Huh? Nothing. You haven't done a damn thing worthwhile in life. You have never ended a day satisfied that you've made a difference in the world. Maybe not to a grand scale, but even a small difference in your little corner of the world, that benefits more than your money-grubbing hands.

So I ask again, what the fark have you done with your skills? Eh? Nothing? You've kept yourself alive? Well lad-de-da, welcome to the rest of the world, you pain in my goddamn ass. Why don't you go crawl in a hole somewhere and contemplate the meaning of life, cause you sure as shiat not proven to me that you have any meaning in life, you just want to shiat on everyone else trying to make a difference in this world. So fark you, you piece of crap. The world needs less assholes like you
 
2013-03-06 02:00:40 PM  

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: I love the fark politics tab.  Especially the "total farkers"  It's the only place on the Internet where one can see people writhing in pain over their financial failure in life while spending $5/month to complain about not having any money.  Hey?  Maybe if you learned a TRADE rather then going to some community college (probably online while eating Cheetos in yer mommy's basement) to earn a worthless "degree", you coulda made something of yourselves?  Ever think of that?  Or are y'all too good to get yer hands dirty?  "But-but-but, I have a degree!"  Guess what, stupid?  So do the other 150 people who applied for this job.  What I need to know is do you have any SKILLS?  No?  Bye.


that's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted in the fark politics tab....and I've been here a LONG time!
 
2013-03-06 02:02:23 PM  
clane:
If Obama doesn't get his way he acts like the spoiled liberal Socialist brat that he is.
This was not even a cut but i am sure you don't even know that...
He lied over and over again trying to hide that this was his idea...
...
Seriously i watch NBC, CNN/HLN and FOX, CNN and NBC lie and pound the drums for the Democrats, FOX explains the truth.


Zasteva:
THE TRUTH
[img.math-fail.com image 750x600]


clane:
NBC said the sequester was going to result in "DEEP CUTS" Fox said it's not cuts at all...  hmmm  who lied?

\sadly you can lead a hore to water...
 
2013-03-06 02:04:00 PM  

fluffy2097: Jobber8742: huh? Congress' pay isn't affected at all. It's the peons who are affected. They didn't creat this mess.

yeah. That's my point and the problem.

Imagine if we fined congress critters $10,000 a day for not creating a balanced budget after a certain date.


Unfortunately, that's illegal. But, maybe we can just raise the heat in the congressional building and offices by one degree per day of fail. Lock the doors.
 
2013-03-06 02:04:07 PM  

BeesNuts: OK then. I disagree. I subscribe to the notion that value is determined specifically and only by the amount of labor it commands. Removing money and market rates from the equation. As an example, a crap ton of silver was discovered in the turn of the 18th century as a result of exploration in the America's. Most of this silver found its way back to Europe. Most of Europe's currency was based on silver. As the real amount of silver increased, their currencies deflated relative to the amount of labor they commanded, but not in relation to the market value of silver. Put another way, the amount of labor commanded by a unit of that currency increased while no apparent change in the relationship of the value of the currency and the value of the commodity whence the currency was derived occurred anywhere in Europe. The VALUE of silver would appear to have decreased, in your definition, whereas in mine, the VALUE of silver increased, as the same quantity of silver, represented by a certain quantity of currency, would command a larger amount of labor in the market.

Beef didn't get cheaper. Nor did the labor that produced it. The value of the currency that purchased it however, did.


I'll be honest, I struggled to follow this.

What exactly are we talking about here?  The value of money?  The value of goods?  Your second sentence states that we should remove money and market rates from the equation, and then you give an example that entirely deals with money and market rates?

I'm not sure how you are saying that the labor commanded by a unit of currency increased after the increase in silver.  If inflation occurred, as it would of after the increase in silver, then each unit of currency would command less labor.

If we're talking about money here, the value of money is entirely determined by the value of real goods it can purchase.  If there are one hundred units of currency in the economy, and 100 units of goods, each unit of currency is worth one unit of good.  If 200 units of goods become available, the value of currency increases to two units of goods.  If another 100 units of currency are added, each unit of currency is now worth half a good.

But again, I'm not entirely sure what we are talking about here - I'm going to need another explanation.

BeesNuts: Police, to use your example, are unproductive labor, in this construction. They provide no value as their economic activity neither increases the value of capital stock by cultivating land or accounts, nor the value of raw goods by turning them into manufactured goods, nor the value of manufactures by transporting them to areas of increased demand.


No, police are obviously productive labor.  Security is a good, just like anything else.  Without the police, people would be forced to provide for their own security, which takes labor.  With the police, people can focus more on producing.  Security is part of the labor of producing anything.

BeesNuts: If *none* of this sounds familiary, I strongly recommend you read Wealth of Nations cover to cover. Wait 6 months. Then read Wealth of Nations cover to cover *again*.


I think you may need to read it again, if this is as best as you can explain it.
 
2013-03-06 02:04:47 PM  

Weaver95: BeesNuts: I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize for making what I had assumed would be a straightforward way to understand the framework of the debate into a right proper shiatshow.

there's nothing anyone can do right now.  the GOP isn't interested in explanations or being reasonable.  hell, Limbaugh has been having a meltdown all week.  so has most of the GOP spin machine.


Naw, I'm just talking about the side bar I'm having with Stafford.  I've been asking for this very conversation for MONTHS and he's the first farker to step up and try and hash out real causes and effects of an imminent economic melt down.  But he meanders, loses focus, appears to lack the comprehensive grasp of macroeconomics necessary to talk about it clearly, but he has an idea and he's trying to express it to shouts of coconuts.  Shouts that are hilarious, and well deserved according to the morality of this here internets.  But I think deep down the guy is willing to have an earnest conversation about the economic destiny of our country.

As such, I thought I could get a bead on the framework under which his ideas formed.  That turned into me finding out, much to my dismay, that *nobody* has read (or at least absorbed) WoN,

Carry on!
 
2013-03-06 02:05:44 PM  

somedude210: So I ask again, what the fark have you done with your skills?


To be fair, he did manage to get a big fat hook in your lip
 
2013-03-06 02:06:03 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: And in your world, feeding people who can't afford food and providing preventive medicine to people who can't afford healthcare aren't "productive programs"

'Bagger, please


Correct.  If I borrow a dollar to feed someone, then tax another person a dollar to pay down the debt, are we better off?  Certainly the individual is better off, but are we as a society?
 
2013-03-06 02:06:37 PM  

fluffy2097: Imagine if we fined congress critters $10,000 a day for not creating a balanced budget after a certain date.


No, that way the richest ones can just wait it out and get everything they want.
 
2013-03-06 02:07:14 PM  

Zasteva: Yet if you assign borrowing amongst all programs, across the board, then you cannot borrow money for productive programs, because you will also be borrowing for unproductive programs.

In short, you are saying we shouldn't borrow money, and putting the "expect on productive programs" is just a feel good words that hides what you are really saying, probably even from yourself.


Actually, saying it like that, I do see what you are saying, and I agree with it.

I guess a better way to phrase it would be that our total borrowing should never exceed the total cost of our productive programs.
 
2013-03-06 02:07:19 PM  

clane: NBC said the sequester was going to result in "DEEP CUTS" Fox said it's not cuts at all... hmmm who lied?

\sadly you can lead a hore to water...


okay, so if no services are affected by say...May? Is Fox still gonna be right?
 
2013-03-06 02:07:46 PM  

Weaver95: BeesNuts: I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize for making what I had assumed would be a straightforward way to understand the framework of the debate into a right proper shiatshow.

there's nothing anyone can do right now.  the GOP isn't interested in explanations or being reasonable.  hell, Limbaugh has been having a meltdown all week.  so has most of the GOP spin machine.


Let's bring it back full circle: is the talking point "Sequester bad, Obama bad," or "Sequester meh, Obama still bad?" Because I've literally seen both spouted by the same person today.
 
2013-03-06 02:08:02 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: How do tax rates indicate anything, positive or negative on the productivity of those who have benefited from the social safety net?


They don't, I retract that statement.
 
2013-03-06 02:08:13 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: somedude210: So I ask again, what the fark have you done with your skills?

To be fair, he did manage to get a big fat hook in your lip


I could just be pissed and took my anger out on him, because why not. He's a dumbass and needed a dressing down
 
2013-03-06 02:09:07 PM  

Cletus C.: I'm beginning to think a certain farker is here for the sole purpose of igniting a wayward discussion so as to divert attention from legitimate debate on sequestration. Threadjacking, as it were.

But now I sound like the crazies here who label anyone who does not agree with their groupthink as a "troll."

Boy, I'm concerned. And tired.


This discussion thread gets to the heart of the issue - what are the ramifications of our spending, and how serious of an issue is it?
 
2013-03-06 02:09:14 PM  

verbaltoxin: Weaver95: BeesNuts: I would like to take this opportunity to formally apologize for making what I had assumed would be a straightforward way to understand the framework of the debate into a right proper shiatshow.

there's nothing anyone can do right now.  the GOP isn't interested in explanations or being reasonable.  hell, Limbaugh has been having a meltdown all week.  so has most of the GOP spin machine.

Let's bring it back full circle: is the talking point "Sequester bad, Obama bad," or "Sequester meh, Obama still bad?" Because I've literally seen both spouted by the same person today.


the GOP default assumption is that everything bad is Obama's fault.
 
2013-03-06 02:09:24 PM  

MattStafford: Correct.  If I borrow a dollar to feed someone, then tax another person a dollar to pay down the debt, are we better off?  Certainly the individual is better off, but are we as a society?


Yes. You keep crime and poverty down, everyone wins.

 It's when you tax someone too much to pay for people who don't work, then you have a problem.
 
2013-03-06 02:10:13 PM  

Tommy Moo: verbaltoxin: Tommy Moo: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Except the sequester is nowhere near 20% of the federal budget. It's closer to 2%. And yes, if I were a hog buying $1000 hammers and $500 toilet seats, I could find a way to survive a 2% pay cut.

Obama is being a dick here, and I say that as a person who voted for him. This is a Republicanesque tactic: scorching the earth and shooting the hostage to make the other guy look bad.

Yeah, how dare he write a bill by himself and force Congress to pass it at gunpoint. Oh right, that's now how legislation works at all.

His executive power to decide what bills to pay circumvents Congress. This isn't about legislation. He is deliberately, unilaterally choosing to short change the most publicly visible and necessary programs in order to make the Republicans look as bad as possible.

"I have to cut $50 million from the FAA. Let's see... I could order the agency to switch from paper to wireless and consolidate the redundant administrative staff. NAH! I think I'll fire all the air traffic controllers so everyone dies in fiery plane crashes. That will show the American people how evil the Republicans are for forcing this sequester!"


Maybe congress should not have sent him this bill then.
 
2013-03-06 02:11:42 PM  

MattStafford: Correct. If I borrow a dollar to feed someone, then tax another person a dollar to pay down the debt, are we better off? Certainly the individual is better off, but are we as a society?


The fact that you have to ask if our society is better of if we feed hungry people and heal sick people tells me a lot about you. The fact that you ask it as an obviously rhetorical question, with your position clearly being staked out as "feeding the hungry and curing the sick does not make our society better if they are part of the MOOCHER class" tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you.

Good day, sir
 
2013-03-06 02:13:54 PM  

clane: Fox said Romney won the election? umm ok So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen. my god NBC and CNN lies more times a day than i can count and you have to go back 30 years to think of something...


How has this troll not been permabanned yet?
 
2013-03-06 02:14:21 PM  
All-Star Troll Thread.
 
2013-03-06 02:14:31 PM  

Biological Ali: clane: Fox said Romney won the election? umm ok So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen. my god NBC and CNN lies more times a day than i can count and you have to go back 30 years to think of something...

How has this troll not been permabanned yet?


because he's an idiot but not ban worthy yet
 
2013-03-06 02:14:32 PM  

Joe USer: MattStafford: Correct.  If I borrow a dollar to feed someone, then tax another person a dollar to pay down the debt, are we better off?  Certainly the individual is better off, but are we as a society?

Yes. You keep crime and poverty down, everyone wins.

 It's when you tax someone too much to pay for people who don't work, then you have a problem.


Which brings up an interesting question about our population, because we're about to see the largest generation of retirees ever, and they're leaving behind a smaller workforce in their place. We actually will have huge expenses for a lot of people who don't work. Some can't or won't be able.

Japan is already dealing with it. I'm not sure what the specifics are though.
 
2013-03-06 02:16:30 PM  

Joe USer: Yes. You keep crime and poverty down, everyone wins.

It's when you tax someone too much to pay for people who don't work, then you have a problem.


But once the spending stops - the person is poor again, and we face the same issues.

If you are suggesting that we should tax the person who ends up paying the debt, and giving the poor person that tax revenue, I'm entirely with you on that one.  The problem with borrowing is that, particularly in this case, the person who ends up on the hook for the debt has no idea he has to pay it, and hasn't been preparing for that eventuality.

It is the difference between saying "this person needs a dollar, so we're going to take a dollar from you and give it to him" and "this person needs a dollar, so we're going to give him one, and take one from at a later date".

The former is fine, the latter creates a situation where the taxpayer (and society in general) lives life without understanding that the bill is going to be coming due.
 
2013-03-06 02:18:52 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: The fact that you have to ask if our society is better of if we feed hungry people and heal sick people tells me a lot about you. The fact that you ask it as an obviously rhetorical question, with your position clearly being staked out as "feeding the hungry and curing the sick does not make our society better if they are part of the MOOCHER class" tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you.


If today I borrow one hundred dollars, and buy a bunch of homeless people Mcdonalds, and then tomorrow take that money from Joe Schmo down the street to pay it off, are we better off as a society?

We still have a bunch of hungry homeless people - the only difference is that McDonald's has an extra 100 in their wallet and Joe Schmo has 100 less.  The homeless people are still homeless and hungry.
 
2013-03-06 02:19:23 PM  

MattStafford: Borrowing to provide health care for the young and productive I would be for.  I would prefer a different system, but that spend is justifiable in my mind.  Borrowing to provide health care for the retired and no longer productive is not justifiable in my mind, even in the latter case you have provided.  In the example, it certainly seems like a good decision, but the general policy is not.  The idea of borrowing now because it prevents greater future borrowing is still not good borrowing.


From a financial perspective only, what do you think happens to elderly people who can't afford health care?

When a retired person can't afford healthcare, they don't receive the regular checkups, advice and early treatment that helps keep their healthcare costs low. Instead they go to emergency rooms when things are seriously wrong, and now very expensive to treat.

Perhaps their family steps in. This takes money from their pockets that could be spent on more productive things, and the stress reduces the productivity of the workers in the family, and reduces the attention that can be paid to the education of the children.

Or perhaps the family has no resources, so the hospital absorbs much of the cost. The hospital still must return a profit to it's shareholders, so it increases costs to other patients to absorb the cost of the treatment.

Often the people who are paying for that care are borrowing the money. They are just borrowing it at a higher interest rate than the government would pay for the same borrowing. And unlike government, they have no power to negotiate for the lowest possible prices for the services.

That's why there is economic benefit to having health care for the retired, even when it is borrowed. Because the government has a lower cost of borrowing than individuals do, and greater negotiating power to get lower costs.
 
2013-03-06 02:20:19 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: somedude210: Tyrano Soros: No thanks. Playing golf is what got us into this mess.

I like when the new trolls come out to play, I just hope they live up to the old class from back in the day

/I miss EnviroDude sometimes

I don't. We haven't had entertaining trolls since the Marine Core days, if you ask me. Case in point:

Tyrano Soros: So why hasn't 0bama shown any leadership and forced the Senate

Dude seriously, you need to get funnier PDQ if you want to stay off everyone's ignore list


Too late! By one comment. I miss him already.
 
2013-03-06 02:21:30 PM  

MattStafford: BeesNuts: OK then. I disagree. I subscribe to the notion that value is determined specifically and only by the amount of labor it commands. Removing money and market rates from the equation. As an example, a crap ton of silver was discovered in the turn of the 18th century as a result of exploration in the America's. Most of this silver found its way back to Europe. Most of Europe's currency was based on silver. As the real amount of silver increased, their currencies deflated relative to the amount of labor they commanded, but not in relation to the market value of silver. Put another way, the amount of labor commanded by a unit of that currency increased while no apparent change in the relationship of the value of the currency and the value of the commodity whence the currency was derived occurred anywhere in Europe. The VALUE of silver would appear to have decreased, in your definition, whereas in mine, the VALUE of silver increased, as the same quantity of silver, represented by a certain quantity of currency, would command a larger amount of labor in the market.

Beef didn't get cheaper. Nor did the labor that produced it. The value of the currency that purchased it however, did.

I'll be honest, I struggled to follow this.

What exactly are we talking about here?  The value of money?  The value of goods?  Your second sentence states that we should remove money and market rates from the equation, and then you give an example that entirely deals with money and market rates?

I'm not sure how you are saying that the labor commanded by a unit of currency increased after the increase in silver.  If inflation occurred, as it would of after the increase in silver, then each unit of currency would command less labor.

If we're talking about money here, the value of money is entirely determined by the value of real goods it can purchase.  If there are one hundred units of currency in the economy, and 100 units of goods, each unit of currency is worth one unit of good.  ...


I'm not going to be able to summarize 700 pages of economic treatise in a fark thread.

I used the relative values of commodities, labor and fiat currency to illustrate the point that value isn't determined by the amount of money something is worth in a specific market, but by the amount of labor it commands in that market.  It's a subtle, complex, but important distinction for the reasons illustrated by the silver example above.  he Labor Theory of Value isn't really news, but if you want to know where I'm getting this from, I point you to Part One Chapter 5.

The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. What is bought with money or with goods is purchased by labour, as much as what we acquire by the toil of our own body.  That money or those goods indeed save us this toil. They contain the value of a certain quantity of labour which we exchange for what is supposed at the time to contain the value of an equal quantity. Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command.

Smith spent several disparate chapters going over the (at the time) contemporary example of silver.  It sticks less in my mind though because it's not as fundamental to his treatise as this passage is.  It comes up repeatedly.  The entire work is predicated on this definition of Value.
 
2013-03-06 02:25:28 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: The fact that you have to ask if our society is better of if we feed hungry people and heal sick people tells me a lot about you. The fact that you ask it as an obviously rhetorical question, with your position clearly being staked out as "feeding the hungry and curing the sick does not make our society better if they are part of the MOOCHER class" tells me pretty much everything I need to know about you.

Good day, sir


MattStafford: [further douchebaggery]


pictat.com
 
2013-03-06 02:28:20 PM  

Joe USer: Cletus C.: I'm beginning to think a certain farker is here for the sole purpose of igniting a wayward discussion so as to divert attention from legitimate debate on sequestration. Threadjacking, as it were.

But now I sound like the crazies here who label anyone who does not agree with their groupthink as a "troll."

They're trolling you say?


No, sincere. Blindly dogged but sincere.
 
2013-03-06 02:28:32 PM  

clane: Zasteva:
THE TRUTH
[img.math-fail.com image 750x600]

clane:
NBC said the sequester was going to result in "DEEP CUTS" Fox said it's not cuts at all...  hmmm  who lied?


Fox News:

"The "sequester" is the Washington word for the $85 billion in 2013 spending cuts set to hit starting March 1, with more than $1 trillion in cuts on tap over the next decade. "

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/20/boehner-to-obama-created- sp ending-cut-crisis-fix-it/
 
2013-03-06 02:29:02 PM  
I'll add that I'm really not trying to be a dick here.  Wealth of Nations is dense, enormous, and anachronistic as all hell.  I have no expectation that you *have* read it, any more than I'd expect that you've read Paradise Lost.  But the notions within are paramount to the logic that dictates our economic policy.

You're obviously not shilling, and you're obviously not dumb.  You're thought process isn't flawed.  And absent your... bizarre analogies... you mostly make sense.  At this point, I am pretty sure you're less convinced of your original (read, several weeks ago) positions and are starting to conceive of the machine in all its magnificent complexity.  The interplay of parts and cogs and systems and actors and power.

The reason it's hard to follow the wealth vs currency vs production vs value discussion is because it is fantastically complicated and unreasonably nuanced.  To make it clearer, you're talking about what Smith calls the Money Value of goods and services.  Smith calls this a mistake and invents a new term, the Real Value of goods and services and defines it as stated above... with extensive elaborations throughout the remaining 700 pages of the opus.
 
2013-03-06 02:31:03 PM  

MattStafford: Zasteva: Yet if you assign borrowing amongst all programs, across the board, then you cannot borrow money for productive programs, because you will also be borrowing for unproductive programs.

In short, you are saying we shouldn't borrow money, and putting the "expect on productive programs" is just a feel good words that hides what you are really saying, probably even from yourself.

Actually, saying it like that, I do see what you are saying, and I agree with it.

I guess a better way to phrase it would be that our total borrowing should never exceed the total cost of our productive programs.


Excellent. That's a statement I can agree with. Of course we may disagree on what our productive programs are.
 
2013-03-06 02:31:07 PM  
MattStafford:
If today I borrow one hundred dollars, and buy a bunch of homeless people Mcdonalds, and then tomorrow take that money from Joe Schmo down the street to pay it off, are we better off as a society?

so
you're against how we pay for our various wars in the deserts around the world...?
 
2013-03-06 02:32:56 PM  

BeesNuts: I used the relative values of commodities, labor and fiat currency to illustrate the point that value isn't determined by the amount of money something is worth in a specific market, but by the amount of labor it commands in that market. It's a subtle, complex, but important distinction for the reasons illustrated by the silver example above. he Labor Theory of Value isn't really news, but if you want to know where I'm getting this from,


Sure - this I understand.  If I collect a coconut, that coconut isn't worth X dollars, that coconut is worth what it would take for a man to get me to part with that coconut.  The work that he would have to do to produce something to trade with me for that coconut.  Currency is just introduced to make that process and calculation a bit easier.

That said - where are you going with this?  If I had to worry about providing my own security for my coconut collecting corporation, I might collect four coconuts.  If I hired the police, I might collect eight coconuts.  Clearly, the police service is worth four coconuts to me, so I would pay them somewhere in that neighborhood.  To say that they don't have value if you use the market to determine it is, I would argue, a false statement.
 
2013-03-06 02:33:11 PM  
clane: NBC said the sequester was going to result in "DEEP CUTS" Fox said it's not cuts at all... hmmm who lied?
\sadly you can lead a horse to water...


somedude210:
okay, so if no services are affected by say...May? Is Fox still gonna be right?

clane:
oh they will try to make it look bad...  Tell me though, why so much pain when their are no cut but an increase in the funds?

PS
Federal workers take the day off -- paid, of course...
 
2013-03-06 02:34:10 PM  

Zasteva: verbaltoxin: So why hasn't 0bama shown any leadership and forced the Senate to adopt any of the House's budget bills? Because he'd rather play politics and golf then help the American people.

You're doing well so far. Keeping the responses short and shrift. Just don't f*ck it up by pretending you're a dentist or economist.

And don't mention rape! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away it.

/dammit, I said rape!
/ twice


Your logic is faulty.
 
2013-03-06 02:35:14 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: MattStafford: [further douchebaggery]

pictat.com


"Give a man a fish, and you have fed him once. Teach him how to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime."

Classic proverbs, or straight douchebaggery - you decide.
 
2013-03-06 02:36:27 PM  

MattStafford: We still have a bunch of hungry homeless people - the only difference is that McDonald's has an extra 100 in their wallet and Joe Schmo has 100 less.  The homeless people are still homeless and hungry.


Sales taxes from that $100 went to improve the streets in front of McDonalds. McDonalds hired people and bought um 'beef' for their burgers and a bunch of people were not hungry for one day.  That's a start, but not an end.

Now, say we gave more money to feed the homeless and helped them find a job at McDonalds? Then they would just be the working poor, and not homeless anymore. That's not the end you want in the long term, but it's in the right direction.
 
2013-03-06 02:36:47 PM  

BeesNuts: Smackledorfer: Munchausen's Proxy: Outstanding

70 posts in and absolutely nobody has actually address the article.  Someone posted a copy of the email mentioned in the article, but then asked about "Lucy"  Many here will moan about people working together, then post crap about "the other side".  In the same post complaining about the other side only looking to place blame, the poster then tries to place blame.

Good job, keep at it

A. People did address it.
B. It was a bullshiat piece misreoresenting what was said in the email.
C. The important thing is you managed to make a meta-post that addressed the thread instead of the article to feel superior to those making posts about the thread instead of the article.

I wish I could barf through my monitor into your eyes and mouth.

It's been a long time coming, but it's official:
[img9.imageshack.us image 761x52]

You said something that made coffee come out my faceholes.


Thank you very much.
 
2013-03-06 02:36:55 PM  

clane: clane:
oh they will try to make it look bad... Tell me though, why so much pain when their are no cut but an increase in the funds?

PS
Federal workers take the day off -- paid, of course...


I'm sorry, are you implying that my furlough will be paid? are you really  farking kidding me? Christ, I give up. You're a farking retard.

and btw, we're required to work from home during snow days if we have the ability to, so yes, we may be out of the office but that doesn't mean we're not working. So why do you not want to pay us for working?
 
2013-03-06 02:38:05 PM  
clane: Fox said Romney won the election? umm ok So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen. my god NBC and CNN lies more times a day than i can count and you have to go back 30 years to think of something...

somedude210: Biological Ali:
How has this troll not been permabanned yet?

because he's an idiot but not ban worthy yet


clane:
you ban for speaking the truth.  the truth stings doesnt it!
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-03-06 02:40:39 PM  

MattStafford: If today I borrow one hundred dollars, and buy a bunch of homeless people Mcdonalds, and then tomorrow take that money from Joe Schmo down the street to pay it off, are we better off as a society?

We still have a bunch of hungry homeless people - the only difference is that McDonald's has an extra 100 in their wallet and Joe Schmo has 100 less.  The homeless people are still homeless and hungry.


And McDonalds had to hire 10 people to make those extra 100 hamburgers, and pay them.

Next day we borrow 90 dollars to feed the remaining homeless, and we tax McDonald's $10 for today's payment back to Joe Schmo.

/silly analogy
 
2013-03-06 02:42:17 PM  

clane: clane:
you ban for speaking the truth. the truth stings doesnt it!


Christ, almighty. I was defending your right to spew your misguided crap. I'll make sure not to defend that anymore then!

farking retarded you are.
 
2013-03-06 02:43:31 PM  

GAT_00: I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.



Far too many people saying, "Fark that guy over there for doing slightly better than me."
Not enough people saying, "Why can't more people do as well as that guy over there?"
 
2013-03-06 02:44:05 PM  

Weaver95: so you're against how we pay for our various wars in the deserts around the world...?


First off, I'm entirely against our various wars in the deserts around the world.  Our actions are making us far less safe than we would be had we been minding our own business.

Second, yes - we should absolutely not be paying for the wars with debt.  The amount of debt we accrued from our various excursions will do far more to destroy our country than a few people five thousand miles away will ever do.  We do need a military for defensive purposes, and it should be paid for out of tax revenue.

Third, we got a lot of cool tech from the military, so I won't say it was a complete waste.  But if our goal is tech, we should invest in the tech and ditch the massive jobs and friends of congress kickback programs that go with it

Ike said it best with the whole every dollar to the MIC is a dollar from our children's mouth.  People thought we got around that with borrowing, but that's just taking it from future kids' mouths.
 
2013-03-06 02:44:54 PM  
clane:  [images.sodahead.com image 640x494]

I eagerly await your explanation of how the sequester cuts are not actually cuts because Fox said so, even though I gave you a direct quote from Fox News where they defined the sequester as cuts.

/still waiting
 
2013-03-06 02:48:22 PM  

This Face Left Blank: Far too many people saying, "Fark that guy over there for doing slightly better than me."
Not enough people saying, "Why can't more people do as well as that guy over there?"


Exactly. The idea of everyone doing better used to be the American Dream. Now that dream seems largely dead and "I got mine" is the new refrain.
 
2013-03-06 02:48:47 PM  

clane: the truth stings doesnt it!


no.
why does truth sting you?
 
2013-03-06 02:49:03 PM  

Zasteva: And McDonalds had to hire 10 people to make those extra 100 hamburgers, and pay them.

Next day we borrow 90 dollars to feed the remaining homeless, and we tax McDonald's $10 for today's payment back to Joe Schmo.

/silly analogy


You are suggesting that McDonalds will permanently hire people based on the perceived demand from that government spending.  In other words, if I give those homeless people a bunch of money, the increased demand will result in Mcdonalds hiring some of those people.  In your mind, that is the end of the story.  In reality, however, Mcdonalds will only keep those people on board as long as that extra demand is there - if you were to stop giving those homeless people money (or even less money) - that demand decreases, and those homeless people are laid off.
 
2013-03-06 02:49:22 PM  

I_C_Weener: I_C_Weener: St_Francis_P: The talking points are always a little confusing, but lately they're just flat contradictory. The sequester is and isn't bad, but the government is hoarding bullets to shoot patriots who riot because of the sequester, but the GOP wanted to cut spending the whole time, but it's Obama's fault. There, did I cover all the salient points?

It was Obama's idea.  It was designed to punish, not cut.  It has military spending cuts in it (not just cuts to future increases) and yet the Democrats aren't happy with that either.

Now, I think we've got it.

Oh, and Republicans already gave in on Tax Increases, now it is time for the Democrats to give in on spending cuts.


It took Obama 4 years to get the GOP to agree to tax increases, and he didn't even get all the increases he wanted. Meanwhile, he's been tax-cutting the shiat out of businesses for the last four years so they can still not hire more workers. Obama has given enough. The GOP needs to give more.
 
2013-03-06 02:50:08 PM  

MattStafford: BeesNuts: I used the relative values of commodities, labor and fiat currency to illustrate the point that value isn't determined by the amount of money something is worth in a specific market, but by the amount of labor it commands in that market. It's a subtle, complex, but important distinction for the reasons illustrated by the silver example above. he Labor Theory of Value isn't really news, but if you want to know where I'm getting this from,

Sure - this I understand.  If I collect a coconut, that coconut isn't worth X dollars, that coconut is worth what it would take for a man to get me to part with that coconut.  The work that he would have to do to produce something to trade with me for that coconut.  Currency is just introduced to make that process and calculation a bit easier.

That said - where are you going with this?  If I had to worry about providing my own security for my coconut collecting corporation, I might collect four coconuts.  If I hired the police, I might collect eight coconuts.  Clearly, the police service is worth four coconuts to me, so I would pay them somewhere in that neighborhood.  To say that they don't have value if you use the market to determine it is, I would argue, a false statement.


God.  Don't ever change.  I'm smiling ear to ear at the moment.

Where I'm going is straight to Part II chapter 5.  There are four ways to spend capital that increase the value of that capital.
1. Gathering Natural Resources
2. Working Those Resources Into Manufactures
3. Selling Or Otherwise Moving Those Resources And Manufactures.
and
4. Dividing Those Resources And Manufactures Into Parts That More Easily Facilitate Consumption.

Capital spent that does not align with one of these four vehicles destroy wealth.  Capital spent in one of these ways increases wealth.

I noticed that you were casting about looking for a way to define "good" and "bad" spending, and to determine what is productive and unproductive spending.  I'm trying to give you a working definition.

You could argue that police factor into a value calculation based on 3 or 4, But unless that police officer replaces his wages and benefits, the capital which was spent on him, with profits on that capital stock equal to or greater than the natural rate of interest, then they are unproductive hands.

Paying farmers to PRODUCE is productive.  Paying farmers to NOT PRODUCE is unproductive.  Paying Farmers lacks the necessary precision of language to pass judgement one way or the other.

Does that make better sense?
 
2013-03-06 02:51:11 PM  

jehovahs witness protection: Philip Francis Queeg: BillCo: It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?

Are public tours of the White House a vital function of the Federal Government? That seems like a pretty smart cut to me.

Tours are done by volunteers...AND COST NOTHING


I'm pretty sure the National Park Service runs the tours. I have a friend who used to do WH tours while in college (and after) and she was a paid employee of the NPS.
 
2013-03-06 02:51:37 PM  

MattStafford: Third, we got a lot of cool tech from the military, so I won't say it was a complete waste.  But if our goal is tech, we should invest in the tech and ditch the massive jobs and friends of congress kickback programs that go with it


I'd argue for putting that into the space program. Equal or harder problems to solve, but with long term benefits for mankind, rather than an arsenal of weapons that do their greatest economic benefits by never being used.

We do need some military. It should big enough to make a foreign invasion very costly, but no much more.
 
2013-03-06 02:52:54 PM  

clane: the truth stings doesnt it!


Hard to tell, haven't heard any truth from you yet.
 
2013-03-06 02:53:43 PM  

MattStafford: To say that they don't have value if you use the market to determine it is, I would argue, a false statement.


I'd like to address this specifically now.

I wouldn't say that they "don't have value" simply because you're using market rates to determine the value.  I'm just saying that the Value as determined by market price is prone to inaccuracy,
 
2013-03-06 02:54:00 PM  

somedude210: farking retarded you are.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-06 02:56:52 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: somedude210: farking retarded you are.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 230x163]


I never realized Yoda is grumpy cat
 
2013-03-06 03:02:44 PM  

clane: the truth stings doesnt it!


I had never seen irony so clear in a forum post.
 
2013-03-06 03:06:39 PM  

BeesNuts: You could argue that police factor into a value calculation based on 3 or 4, But unless that police officer replaces his wages and benefits, the capital which was spent on him, with profits on that capital stock equal to or greater than the natural rate of interest, then they are unproductive hands.

Paying farmers to PRODUCE is productive. Paying farmers to NOT PRODUCE is unproductive. Paying Farmers lacks the necessary precision of language to pass judgement one way or the other.

Does that make better sense?


Well, if paying for the police (or a security guard, or hell, a lock) creates a situation that prevents the loss of other capital, and the cost of the security is less that the potential loss, it seems like a productive use of capital.  Perhaps it is not, based on Smith's definition, but at that point, it appears we are arguing semantics.  I would argue that paying for security is a productive expenditure, if it creates a situation where there is an increased amount of production over the nonsecure state greater than the cost of the security.

Without a police force, town produces X goods.  With a police force, town produces Y goods.  The police force costs Z goods.  It Y-X > Z, I would consider it a productive use of resources.  Perhaps Adam Smith would not, but then again, I'm no Adam Smith.
 
2013-03-06 03:09:47 PM  

BeesNuts: I wouldn't say that they "don't have value" simply because you're using market rates to determine the value. I'm just saying that the Value as determined by market price is prone to inaccuracy,


I would agree.  It would be very difficult to adequately determine the market value of services often provided by the state, such as large infrastructure or the police/courts.  And in some cases, it would be very difficult to make an economic calculation to determine whether or not and investment in those areas would be beneficial.  If we beefed up Detroit's police force, would business come back?  It is a difficult question, and every time you pose one of these questions, it has different inputs and variables that must be considered, and is a completely unique use of money.
 
2013-03-06 03:10:09 PM  

This Face Left Blank: GAT_00: I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.


Far too many people saying, "Fark that guy over there for doing slightly better than me."
Not enough people saying, "Why can't more people do as well as that guy over there?"


Fair argument, but do you consider "you can't get blood from a stone, welfare programs are good for the health of a society, and we need more revenue so it will have to come from the wealthy who can afford it" to mean "fark that guy over there"?
 
2013-03-06 03:11:53 PM  

clane: clane: Fox said Romney won the election? umm ok So that Benghazi thing, yea innocent people died because Obama couldn't take time from his golf outing but hey they were just little people so your liberal left media says let's just go on about our business and pretend it didn't happen. my god NBC and CNN lies more times a day than i can count and you have to go back 30 years to think of something...

somedude210: Biological Ali:
How has this troll not been permabanned yet?

because he's an idiot but not ban worthy yet

clane:
you ban for speaking the truth.  the truth stings doesnt it!
[images.sodahead.com image 640x494]


You try way to hard to troll the politics tab, over time you will learn subtly.
 
2013-03-06 03:13:53 PM  
 Just stop talking the MattStafford guys. It will never stop if you don't. We don't even get the coconut analogy anymore.
 
2013-03-06 03:15:46 PM  
So the email says they can't keep departments open or close departments contrary to what the word from above is, that they don't have full autonomy to do whatever the heck they want with the reductions, bosses be damned. Well, I'm shocked, shocked I say. It's almost like that guys boss thinks he's some kind of "boss" figure who should be consulted with before lower-level workers change the plans he set forth.

Truly history's greatest monster.
 
2013-03-06 03:16:09 PM  

Muk_Man: Just stop talking the MattStafford guys. It will never stop if you don't. We don't even get the coconut analogy anymore.


I was talking coconuts this very thread!
 
2013-03-06 03:18:49 PM  

MattStafford: Muk_Man: Just stop talking the MattStafford guys. It will never stop if you don't. We don't even get the coconut analogy anymore.

I was talking coconuts this very thread!


I'm glad you admitted to just being inflammatory. When you said you had a degree in this stuff I was starting to get concerned.
 
2013-03-06 03:21:35 PM  
Politicians playing politics?!?!?! This is an outrage! What's next, basketball players playing basketball? Dogs playing fetch? Cats playing don't give a fark? Cops chasing criminals?

What kind of crazy world is that!?!?

I demand answers!!!

/Benghazi!
 
2013-03-06 03:23:12 PM  

NateGrey: I'm glad you admitted to just being inflammatory. When you said you had a degree in this stuff I was starting to get concerned.


It isn't as though I don't believe the stuff I'm posting.  I mean, it isn't even that extreme.  Don't borrow money and spend it on consumption.  Borrow money only if you are going to do something worthwhile.

Somehow that just makes the Fark collective's head explode.
 
2013-03-06 03:34:01 PM  

MattStafford: Muk_Man: Just stop talking the MattStafford guys. It will never stop if you don't. We don't even get the coconut analogy anymore.

I was talking coconuts this very thread!


Haha, I just got there :p.
 
2013-03-06 03:39:13 PM  

MattStafford: NateGrey: I'm glad you admitted to just being inflammatory. When you said you had a degree in this stuff I was starting to get concerned.

It isn't as though I don't believe the stuff I'm posting.  I mean, it isn't even that extreme.  Don't borrow money and spend it on consumption.  Borrow money only if you are going to do something worthwhile.

Somehow that just makes the Fark collective's head explode.


It's more that it's a very simplistic look at a complex problem and spending isn't really broken down into "borrowed spending" and "taxed spending" so I don't really understand what you really think we should do.
 
2013-03-06 03:59:01 PM  

Muk_Man: It's more that it's a very simplistic look at a complex problem and spending isn't really broken down into "borrowed spending" and "taxed spending" so I don't really understand what you really think we should do.


As someone above stated, the amount we borrow per year should never exceed what we are spending on "productive" programs.

Of course, the problem becomes determining what is a productive program, and that is a complex issue.  Each instance of government spending will operate in a relatively unique situation, with a unique combination of variables, and determining how this spending will affect the economy is a difficult action.  You can't make a blanket statement along the lines of "increasing the amount of police in a city will increase the economic activity in the city" - that will be completely different for different cities.  You can't say "building a bridge will increase trade in the area" because it entirely depends on the bridge, the area, and a whole host of other factors.

Which is all fairly straightforward stuff.  The problem is, some Farker's can't grasp the concept that it is possible for the government to spend on things that aren't productive, or in other words, the government can never make a bad investment.  And those are the people who fight me tooth and nail on this kind of stuff.

All I'm looking for is someone to say "increasing the amount of money we give to retire people will increase economic activity enough to pay for that program" - which no one is able to do.  You can easily show how building a hypothetical bridge will increase economic activity enough to pay for the bridge, or providing a hypothetical police force, or a hypothetical youth education/healthcare program, but you cannot show how a hypothetical increase in spending on retired people will create the economic activity to pay for the program.
 
2013-03-06 03:59:51 PM  

MattStafford:   Borrow money only if you are going to do something worthwhile.



That's where you lose lots of us.  Because there is a HUGE difference in what you would consider "worthwhile" if you had the purse strings, and what the greater collection of us human beings would consider worthwhile.
 
2013-03-06 04:01:06 PM  

MattStafford: but you cannot show how a hypothetical increase in spending on retired people will create the economic activity to pay for the program.


Such as new medical technologies?
 
2013-03-06 04:02:05 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: That's where you lose lots of us. Because there is a HUGE difference in what you would consider "worthwhile" if you had the purse strings, and what the greater collection of us human beings would consider worthwhile.


Financially worthwhile, I should have said.
 
2013-03-06 04:04:19 PM  

KhanAidan: Such as new medical technologies?


Are those medical technologies applicable to strictly the elderly, or to the youth as well.  If we spend a ton of money developing methods to keep retired people alive - we aren't making our economy any stronger.  If we develop technologies to keep the young and productive alive - we are making our economy stronger.

Giving money to the elderly for medical care will result primarily in the former, not the latter.  In fact, it will actually hinder progress on the latter as many smart doctor's will be focused on the former as opposed to the latter, due to the influence of government spending.
 
2013-03-06 04:08:13 PM  

MattStafford: Satan's Bunny Slippers: That's where you lose lots of us. Because there is a HUGE difference in what you would consider "worthwhile" if you had the purse strings, and what the greater collection of us human beings would consider worthwhile.

Financially worthwhile, I should have said.


But there is still the difference that many of us think that investing in programs to ensure the welfare of others regardless of their future earning potential is worthwhile, but you do not.  You make no secret of that, and that's ok, just stop acting surprised when we say that letting old people die because you would not recommend borrowing money to help keep them cared for is ok.  It's not ok.  It will never be ok.
 
2013-03-06 04:09:40 PM  

MattStafford: BeesNuts: You could argue that police factor into a value calculation based on 3 or 4, But unless that police officer replaces his wages and benefits, the capital which was spent on him, with profits on that capital stock equal to or greater than the natural rate of interest, then they are unproductive hands.

Paying farmers to PRODUCE is productive. Paying farmers to NOT PRODUCE is unproductive. Paying Farmers lacks the necessary precision of language to pass judgement one way or the other.

Does that make better sense?

Well, if paying for the police (or a security guard, or hell, a lock) creates a situation that prevents the loss of other capital, and the cost of the security is less that the potential loss, it seems like a productive use of capital.  Perhaps it is not, based on Smith's definition, but at that point, it appears we are arguing semantics.  I would argue that paying for security is a productive expenditure, if it creates a situation where there is an increased amount of production over the nonsecure state greater than the cost of the security.

Without a police force, town produces X goods.  With a police force, town produces Y goods.  The police force costs Z goods.  It Y-X > Z, I would consider it a productive use of resources.  Perhaps Adam Smith would not, but then again, I'm no Adam Smith.


Don't confuse clarity and precision of language with semantics.  Productive doesn't mean utilitarian, or even "useful" or "valuable".  A Productive Use of Capital means, very specifically, that when you spend that capital on something, that thing increases the value of THAT capital.

Police aren't worthless.  They clearly have a "value" for society, and you describe it well.  The reason that using capital to pay police and soldiers is "Unproductive" is because they don't "produce" additional Labor Value with that capital.  A town paying 100 cops 50k a piece has no reasonable expectation to recoup that investment plus interest.  The police are not using that capital to bring additional goods to broader markets, produce raw materials, or work those materials into manufactures.

These definitions are important in the same way that knowing your multiplication tables is important.  This language is the mortar that holds any discussion about macroeconomics together.  Unless we are unified in these definitions, we can't actually carry on a conversation.

I would agree with your assessment of the value of police.  And an argument can be made that police, peculiarly, augment either the amount of goods brought to market or the cheapness of those goods, demand notwithstanding.  But that argument can only truly be had if our definitions are clear and our language precise.

Things have Worth.  Things have Value.  These are two distinct qualities of Things.
 
2013-03-06 04:12:03 PM  

MattStafford: KhanAidan: Such as new medical technologies?

Are those medical technologies applicable to strictly the elderly, or to the youth as well.  If we spend a ton of money developing methods to keep retired people alive - we aren't making our economy any stronger.  If we develop technologies to keep the young and productive alive - we are making our economy stronger.

Giving money to the elderly for medical care will result primarily in the former, not the latter.  In fact, it will actually hinder progress on the latter as many smart doctor's will be focused on the former as opposed to the latter, due to the influence of government spending.


If we are able to keep elderly alive longer, that may translate into longer working lives; therefore more productivity.  But that point doesn't matter.  What I was getting at is that one could easily make an argument for most expenditures that results in some sort of positive future economic growth.  Given the immense difficulty in capturing spillover/externality effects in economic research, attempting to limit government expenditures to only 'beneficial' projects makes little sense.
 
2013-03-06 04:13:30 PM  

somedude210: Mike Chewbacca: somedude210: farking retarded you are.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 230x163]

I never realized Yoda is grumpy cat


HA!
 
2013-03-06 04:22:50 PM  

somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it


umm - welcome to what all of us in the private sector have come to call THE LAST 5 YEARS

there's a reason people have such an issue with the public sector & you just demonstrated it perfectly

/is it nice in that bubble you live in?
/i know i'm late but whatever
 
2013-03-06 04:25:22 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: But there is still the difference that many of us think that investing in programs to ensure the welfare of others regardless of their future earning potential is worthwhile, but you do not. You make no secret of that, and that's ok, just stop acting surprised when we say that letting old people die because you would not recommend borrowing money to help keep them cared for is ok. It's not ok. It will never be ok.


I understand that people think that it is a worthwhile decision, but financially speaking, they're wrong.  And that is what it comes down to.
 
2013-03-06 04:27:10 PM  

GAT_00: I_C_Weener: GAT_00: I_C_Weener: somedude210: Well, sequester really is a bad thing, and anyone who thinks that blindly cutting our way to prosperity isn't a bad thing should be smacked around with my furlough notice

Take a 20% pay cut and get back to me how your spending isn't affected by it

Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

Which gives you the right to inflict it on other people?  That's your governing philosophy?  Screw over other people's lives?  That makes you a shiatty supervillain, the kind that gets knocked out 10 minutes into the story, not any kind of rational person.

Nope.  But I'm not too sympathetic to people biatching about hitting the recession 4 years after the rest of us did.

Woohoo, other people who never did anything wrong to me got hurt!  Time for a happy dance!


People who had to go through shiat have a primal need to see, know, or force others to go through the same shiat. This is often explained away as "life ain't fair," but in reality, gives these people an undeserved feeling of a fairer world.
 
2013-03-06 04:29:20 PM  

KhanAidan: If we are able to keep elderly alive longer, that may translate into longer working lives; therefore more productivity. But that point doesn't matter. What I was getting at is that one could easily make an argument for most expenditures that results in some sort of positive future economic growth. Given the immense difficulty in capturing spillover/externality effects in economic research, attempting to limit government expenditures to only 'beneficial' projects makes little sense.


Yes - if medical technology allowed us to have an increased length of livelihood (which it has) - that would be good for the economy, with one caveat - we would actually have to work for that increased amount of time, which we haven't.

If your argument relies on secondary expenditures, things beyond the control of government, it isn't a good fiscal policy.  Your argument is that government should spend on the elderly, and that hopefully that money will end up somewhere productive after they spend it?  That isn't a smart fiscal policy, particularly when that money is borrowed.  What happens when it doesn't end up there?

Is there ever government spending that is not a good thing, in your opinion?
 
2013-03-06 04:35:55 PM  

MattStafford: KhanAidan: If we are able to keep elderly alive longer, that may translate into longer working lives; therefore more productivity. But that point doesn't matter. What I was getting at is that one could easily make an argument for most expenditures that results in some sort of positive future economic growth. Given the immense difficulty in capturing spillover/externality effects in economic research, attempting to limit government expenditures to only 'beneficial' projects makes little sense.

Yes - if medical technology allowed us to have an increased length of livelihood (which it has) - that would be good for the economy, with one caveat - we would actually have to work for that increased amount of time, which we haven't.


Not necessarily.  Increasing the size of the labor pool doesn't mean you increase production, and can lead (and, in fact, has led) to higher unemployment, producing a natural drag on economic growth.

Increasing the size of the *consumer* pool has been shown to lead to increased production and higher demand for labor, reducing unemployment and ultimately creating wealth out of truly Unproductive spending.

The calculus is INSANELY COMPLICATED.  Saying that increasing the working life of people would help the economy is like saying that increasing the amount of oxygen in the water would make it more flammable.  There are far too many steps between A and B to make that leap.
 
2013-03-06 04:36:27 PM  
the email from the white house official implies that there is discretion of make cuts that 'are not contradicting what we said the impact would be'.  It doesn't say to make cuts according to the law.  It says to make cuts consistent with what the dems said the impact would be.

If there is discretion to make cuts to make impact, there is discretion to make cuts to reduce impact.
 
2013-03-06 04:37:51 PM  
MattStafford:

As someone above stated, the amount we borrow per year should never exceed what we are spending on "productive" programs.

Of course, the problem becomes determining what is a productive program, and that is a complex issue.  Each instance of government spending will operate in a relatively unique situation, with a unique combination of variables, and determining how this spending will affect the economy is a difficult action.  You can't make a blanket statement along the lines of "increasing the amount of police in a city will increase the economic activity in the city" - that will be completely different for different cities.  You can't say "building a bridge will increase trade in the area" because it entirely depends on the bridge, the area, and a whole host of other factors.

Which is all fairly straightforward stuff.  The problem is, some Farker's can't grasp the concept that it is possible for the government to spend on things that aren't productive, or in other words, the government can never make a bad investment.  And those are the people who fight me tooth and nail on this kind of stuff.

All I'm looking for is someone to say "increasing the amount of money we give to retire people will increase economic activity enough to pay for that program" - which no one is able to do.  You can easily show how building a hypothetical bridge will increase economic activity enough to pay for the bridge, or providing a hypothetical police force, or a hypothetical youth education/healthcare program, but you cannot show how a hypothetical increase in spending on retired people will create the economic activity to pay for the program.


Ok, I see what you're trying to say. SS payments for example aren't really an investment in the economy, they're for humanitarian purposes. I just don't think framing it as borrowed spending on investments vs taxed spending on other programs is very useful. Because even though SS payments aren't necessarily a good long-term economic investment, I would still say it's necessary as a developed country. So I think splitting the number into two portions is too difficult to be useful. Also, ideally taxes should cover some of the investment capital as well imo.

The bottom line is eventually the US is going to have to run a surplus for awhile, and to do that you'll need targeted spending cuts (these automatic cuts are insane), with tax increases (a few more points on the wealthy now imo, then extend the raises to the middle class once the economy is on it's feet a little more) AND you'll need economic growth. Which is hard when you're cutting spending and raising taxes, so the cuts and raises need to be phased in slowly. Unfortunately the politics in the US right now are so crazy this will never happen.

So while I agree with you that cuts are necessary, I disagree with you that the sequester cuts are good because they're likely going to stall the little economic growth the US has gained since the recession. 

Finally, while I agree the US could have a large issue with borrowing in the future as you suggest (if the US doesn't make progress towards a surplus) I don't think the crisis is as imminent as you think and believe that the economic harm caused by sharp tax raises/spending cuts needed to offset the current volume of borrowing would be pretty catastrophic. So for now a support continued borrowing. I don't think anyone is arguing this is a permanent solution though.
 
2013-03-06 04:39:41 PM  
MattStafford:

Is there ever government spending that is not a good thing, in your opinion?

To this point, yes.  And anyone would be a fool to say otherwise.  The trouble is in accurately assessing the financial and ethical "goodness" of various kinds of spending.  Unfortunately there is no formula, per se.  Which is why democracy is so awesome.  We get to answer that question together.

Does the VA add Value to our economy (grow our GDP)?  NO!  Is it "Good"?  YES!  Is it "good" enough to justify being an expense?  Difficult to answer.  Let's ask a followup question:  How "Bad" is the financial drag the VA places on our economy in terms of Real Value?
 
2013-03-06 04:44:41 PM  

MattStafford: Yes - if medical technology allowed us to have an increased length of livelihood (which it has) - that would be good for the economy, with one caveat - we would actually have to work for that increased amount of time, which we haven't.


Actually, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, the average retirement age has been increasing since the 1980's.  So yes, we are working longer.

MattStafford: If your argument relies on secondary expenditures, things beyond the control of government, it isn't a good fiscal policy. Your argument is that government should spend on the elderly, and that hopefully that money will end up somewhere productive after they spend it? That isn't a smart fiscal policy, particularly when that money is borrowed. What happens when it doesn't end up there?


Your arguments do as well.  There is absolutely no specific productive benefit to constructing a road until it can be used (secondary expenditures of transportation).  This would be similar for education, or almost anything you can think of.  Nearly all government expenditures follow the same situation.

MattStafford: Is there ever government spending that is not a good thing, in your opinion?


I don't know.  I'm not advocating a position for cuts in specific programs.  I'm merely pointing out that your method of determining whether a program should have government expenditures involved makes little sense.  Without knowing more about program spillovers/externalities, taking a stance on one program versus another just doesn't make sense.
 
2013-03-06 04:59:40 PM  

SlothB77: the email from the white house official implies that there is discretion of make cuts that 'are not contradicting what we said the impact would be'.  It doesn't say to make cuts according to the law.  It says to make cuts consistent with what the dems said the impact would be.

If there is discretion to make cuts to make impact, there is discretion to make cuts to reduce impact.


Sounds to me like the far-right wing just misinterpreted (or lied...as is often common with those afflicted with the conservative disease) an email and then imagined context (those afflicted with the conservative disease do have very active, child-like imaginations) into the email that was not there.

Where is this "White House official" in this email that you speak of?  Where does the email say to make the cuts consistent with what the Dems said the impact would be?  Are you imagining things that aren't there?  Do the voices in your head come from your own thoughts or do they sound like they are somebody else speaking?

USDA cleared it up today and it makes a lot more sense than some grandiose conspiracy theory from the far-right wing.   http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/03/usda-instructs-make-sure-y o ure-not-contradicting-the-158502.html I'm sure this won't put an end to the gibberish and lunatic ramblings of the far-right wingers even if actual context is supplied to them.  As I said, children do have very active imaginations.
 
2013-03-06 05:04:05 PM  

steppenwolf: MattStafford: People who think that the sequester won't be painful are ignorant.  You're cutting 85 billion from the economy.  Regardless of what those people who receive that money actually do - that's 85 billion less that people will be spending/investing.  That said, spending cuts are both necessary and a good thing, regardless of the pain.

Conservatives complain about the country turning into Greece, which is hilarious because austerity is exactly what would turn us into Greece.


Conservatives are only complaining about liberals turning the country into Greece. If they do it themselves, it's ok, because they can a) spin it to the base b) blame the libs c) move their investments offshore or hire cheap labor at home.
 
2013-03-06 05:32:32 PM  

MattStafford: Satan's Bunny Slippers: But there is still the difference that many of us think that investing in programs to ensure the welfare of others regardless of their future earning potential is worthwhile, but you do not. You make no secret of that, and that's ok, just stop acting surprised when we say that letting old people die because you would not recommend borrowing money to help keep them cared for is ok. It's not ok. It will never be ok.

I understand that people think that it is a worthwhile decision, but financially speaking, they're wrong.  And that is what it comes down to.


No that isn't what it comes down to. You are wrong. And I will not argue it with you.

Good day.
 
2013-03-06 06:39:57 PM  

BillCo: It's called the Washington Memorial Strategy.

And, we really don't need the memo to prove that Obama is engaging in it.  He shut down tours of the White House for fark's sake.  Can't get much more transparent than that.  He is doing everything in his power to make the American public think that this is still the end of the world.

It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people.  Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?


You should ask the GOP led house. You know, where spending bills originate.
 
2013-03-06 07:47:58 PM  

BillCo: It's pretty sad when the President of the United States resorts to such childish tactics to scare the American people. Whatever happened to the concept of leadership?


The republican response to it during his first four years in office?

This fight is just a continuation of all those bs fights we've been suffering through already, the fights caused by people who have said on record that they hope obama fails.
 
2013-03-06 07:59:34 PM  
Still plenty of room in the budget for Michelle to attend her award shows and the president to go on late night TV
 
2013-03-06 08:03:55 PM  

BeesNuts: Smackledorfer: Munchausen's Proxy: Outstanding

70 posts in and absolutely nobody has actually address the article.  Someone posted a copy of the email mentioned in the article, but then asked about "Lucy"  Many here will moan about people working together, then post crap about "the other side".  In the same post complaining about the other side only looking to place blame, the poster then tries to place blame.

Good job, keep at it

A. People did address it.
B. It was a bullshiat piece misreoresenting what was said in the email.
C. The important thing is you managed to make a meta-post that addressed the thread instead of the article to feel superior to those making posts about the thread instead of the article.

I wish I could barf through my monitor into your eyes and mouth.

It's been a long time coming, but it's official:
[img9.imageshack.us image 761x52]

You said something that made coffee come out my faceholes.


*I* came...
 
2013-03-06 09:21:29 PM  
Leaked e-mail shows that Obama Charles Brown, a director at the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C. has been deliberately trying to make the sequester a bad thing

FTFY
 
2013-03-06 10:21:04 PM  

somedude210: I_C_Weener: Those of us in the private sector have been dealing with that for years now.

you also, in theory, get paid a lot better than those of us in government

/we're just a bit more secure in our jobs


Having read the government pay scales, allow me to say.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
2013-03-07 07:43:37 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I_C_Weener: now it is time for the Democrats to give in on spending cuts.

It's like the $2.8T in spending cuts signed already into law don't even exist.


But the New Deal programs are still in place. The Rape-ublicans won't be happy until the US is in the same shape it was in under Hoover. God help us.
 
2013-03-07 07:45:43 AM  

Hack Patooey: St_Francis_P: The talking points are always a little confusing, but lately they're just flat contradictory. The sequester is and isn't bad, but the government is hoarding bullets to shoot patriots who riot because of the sequester, but the GOP wanted to cut spending the whole time, but it's Obama's fault. There, did I cover all the salient points?

I dont see Jesus or gays mentioned.  Rewrite it and I'll re-grade your paper by Friday.


He also omitted Benghazi.
 
2013-03-07 09:01:07 AM  

Muk_Man: Because even though SS payments aren't necessarily a good long-term economic investment, I would still say it's necessary as a developed country. So I think splitting the number into two portions is too difficult to be useful. Also, ideally taxes should cover some of the investment capital as well imo.


It is entirely useful and absolutely necessary.  If you finance all of your humanitarian spending via borrowing, if you ever face a situation where you can no longer borrow, you can no longer finance your humanitarian spending.  If we were shut out of the bond markets tomorrow, and could no longer finance our borrowing, we would be forced to dramatically reduce our military/welfare budgets - throwing millions of people into the streets.  And that is a serious problem.  If we financed those programs via tax revenue, there is nothing to worry about, as we could still afford them.

That distinction is extremely important and needs to be discussed.

Muk_Man: The bottom line is eventually the US is going to have to run a surplus for awhile, and to do that you'll need targeted spending cuts (these automatic cuts are insane), with tax increases (a few more points on the wealthy now imo, then extend the raises to the middle class once the economy is on it's feet a little more) AND you'll need economic growth. Which is hard when you're cutting spending and raising taxes, so the cuts and raises need to be phased in slowly. Unfortunately the politics in the US right now are so crazy this will never happen.


We need more than targeted spending cuts and a few tax increases - we have a serious deficit that will require serious action.

And increased spending doesn't necessarily mean increased economic growth.  Humanitarian spending, as we called it before, will not strengthen our country's economy.

Muk_Man: Finally, while I agree the US could have a large issue with borrowing in the future as you suggest (if the US doesn't make progress towards a surplus) I don't think the crisis is as imminent as you think and believe that the economic harm caused by sharp tax raises/spending cuts needed to offset the current volume of borrowing would be pretty catastrophic. So for now a support continued borrowing. I don't think anyone is arguing this is a permanent solution though.


I guess I'll just have to disagree with you on this one.  We're going to have an extremely difficult time financing trillion dollar deficits in the next few years.
 
2013-03-07 09:04:55 AM  

KhanAidan: Your arguments do as well. There is absolutely no specific productive benefit to constructing a road until it can be used (secondary expenditures of transportation). This would be similar for education, or almost anything you can think of. Nearly all government expenditures follow the same situation.


You can determine whether or not a road will be a good investment through studies.  You cannot determine whether or not the money that you give to a person will ever end up funding a good investment.  To argue otherwise is rather asinine.

KhanAidan: I don't know. I'm not advocating a position for cuts in specific programs. I'm merely pointing out that your method of determining whether a program should have government expenditures involved makes little sense. Without knowing more about program spillovers/externalities, taking a stance on one program versus another just doesn't make sense.


Obviously.  I'm making the argument that you should only borrow and spend if you are borrowing and spending on a productive project.  To determine whether or not something is a productive project, you need to do studies and research it.  It seems as though you are suggesting that direct transfers of money to individuals could be productive - depending on what they spend it on - which is certainly possible, but I doubt that you could show it through any sort of study (and it doesn't seem too likely, particularly in this investment free economy) which is why I don't think you can call it productive spending.
 
2013-03-07 10:55:12 AM  

MattStafford: You can determine whether or not a road will be a good investment through studies. You cannot determine whether or not the money that you give to a person will ever end up funding a good investment. To argue otherwise is rather asinine.


I think you underestimate the difficulty of deciding whether any project is necessarily a good investment.  Very very rarely are the studies done with any decent analysis.  The reason?  Studies about specific projects almost entirely ignore any spillover or externalities created with the funding of the project.  For example, when California attempted to implement Tennessee's STAR program for their education system; it created all sorts of problems.  Studies had shown the effectiveness of lowering class size on student performance, but they had completely ignored knock-on effects that the program would create in teacher hiring.  California actually saw a decrease in student achievement despite lowering class sizes.

The more one tries to get an accurate description of the true effects of any policy, the more it costs and the more time it takes, preventing or delaying effective action.  My point simply remains; doing a cost-benefit analysis to decide government expenditures makes little sense given that most government choices are specifically targeting spillover/externality problems.

MattStafford: Obviously. I'm making the argument that you should only borrow and spend if you are borrowing and spending on a productive project. To determine whether or not something is a productive project, you need to do studies and research it. It seems as though you are suggesting that direct transfers of money to individuals could be productive - depending on what they spend it on - which is certainly possible, but I doubt that you could show it through any sort of study (and it doesn't seem too likely, particularly in this investment free economy) which is why I don't think you can call it productive spending.


Again, I am suggesting that if transfers to individuals could be productive, then we shouldn't just dismiss it as unproductive.  As I mentioned earlier, there has already been a little bit of work indicating that the stereotypical idea of consumption as a non-productive sector may not be accurate.  Which makes sense given that an increase in a firm's revenues likely leads to at least some portion of that income stream moving into investment/R&D (one might think of it as the marginal propensity to research or invest).  However, I am not suggesting that consumption is necessarily a positive thing either.  I am merely pointing out that as I have mentioned before, this cost-benefit analysis that you are suggesting is not a realistic way of deciding how best to allocate government funds.  In theory, it's a perfectly legitimate (and I as well as most economists would agree, a useful) idea.  In practice, it just doesn't jive with reality.
 
2013-03-07 09:28:15 PM  

Weaver95: so basically it goes like this:

GOP: 'we love spending cuts.  spending cuts are GREAT!  [arranges sequester].  oh yeah, this is gonna be AWESOME!'
Obama: 'um...this isn't necessary. we can find other ways to cut spending and minimize the impact on the poor and middle class.'
GOP: 'SPENDING CUTS NAOW!'
Obama: 'but...
GOP: CUTS NAOW!'
Obama: fine.  its your budget, you live with it.
GOP: 'hey, wait!  people are mad at us!  OBAMA!  THIS IS YOUR FAULT!  GOTDAMN YOUUUUUUUUUU!'


Sometimes, I think you're off your rocker. With this though, I agree.
 
Displayed 469 of 469 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report